ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ELKHART SIDING AND TRACK CONSTRUCTION

Union Pacific Railroad Track Improvement Project 

1200N Rd. to 450 Ave., IL (MP 161.90 to MP 170.45)

LOGAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545

by the 

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 2013

The following person may be contacted for information on the Environmental Assessment: 

John Oimoen

Deputy Director of Rail

IDOT Bureau of High Speed and Passenger Rail

100 W Randolph Street, Suite 6-600

Chicago, Illinois 60601
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project i Environmental Assessment

Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project History...............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Study Area .....................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Project Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................1-4

1.5 Applicable Regulations ................................................................................................1-5

2.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Evaluated Alternatives.................................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative.......................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 New Siding Track and Track Construction (Build Alternative) ...............2-2

3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation ........................3-1

3.1 Physical Environment ..................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Energy................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.3 Floodplains .......................................................................................................3-3

3.1.4 Noise and Vibration.......................................................................................3-10

3.1.5 Agriculture......................................................................................................3-14

3.1.6 Tree Resources................................................................................................3-16

3.2 Ecological Systems......................................................................................................3-17

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US ...................................................................3-23

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources...........................................................3-31

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................3-33

3.2.4 Special Lands ..................................................................................................3-37

3.2.5 Section 4(f) Properties....................................................................................3-37

3.2.6 Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources ...........................................3-38

3.3 Human Environment..................................................................................................3-38

3.3.1 Transportation................................................................................................3-38

3.3.2 Land Use .........................................................................................................3-40

3.3.3 Demographics ................................................................................................3-41

3.3.4 Economics and Employment........................................................................3-43

3.3.5 Environmental Justice and Title VI .............................................................3-44
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project ii Environmental Assessment

3.3.6 Barriers and Accessibility .............................................................................3-45

3.3.7 Public Health and Safety...............................................................................3-45

3.3.8 Hazardous Materials .....................................................................................3-46

3.3.9 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................3-51

3.4 Construction Impacts .................................................................................................3-52

3.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................3-52

3.5.1 Indirect Impacts .............................................................................................3-52

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................3-53

3.6 Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................3-54

3.7 Permits..........................................................................................................................3-54

3.8 Environmental Commitments...................................................................................3-54

4.0 Coordination and Consultation .............................................................................................4-1

4.1 Meetings .........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Agencies .........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation ...........................4-1

4.2.2 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation..............4-1

4.2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................4-1

5.0 Distribution List........................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Federal Agencies ..............................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 State Agencies...................................................................................................5-1

5.1.3 Counties.............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.4 Local Communities and Jurisdictions...........................................................5-1

5.1.5 Railroads ...........................................................................................................5-1

6.0 References ..................................................................................................................................6-1
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project iii Environmental Assessment

Figures

Figure 1 – Project Study Area................................................................................................................1-3

Figure 2 – Proposed Improvements .....................................................................................................2-3

Figure 3 – At-Grade Crossings ..............................................................................................................2-4

Figure 4 – At-Grade Crossings ..............................................................................................................2-5

Figure 5 – At-Grade Crossings ..............................................................................................................2-6

Figure 6 – FIRM Map..............................................................................................................................3-5

Figure 7 – FIRM Map..............................................................................................................................3-6

Figure 8 – FIRM Map..............................................................................................................................3-7

Figure 9 – FIRM Map..............................................................................................................................3-8

Figure 10 – FIRM Map............................................................................................................................3-9

Figure 11 – Environmental Inventory ................................................................................................3-18

Figure 12 – Environmental Inventory ................................................................................................3-19

Figure 13 – Environmental Inventory ................................................................................................3-20

Figure 14 – Environmental Inventory ................................................................................................3-21

Figure 15 – Environmental Inventory ................................................................................................3-22

Figure 16 – Wetlands ............................................................................................................................3-25

Figure 17 – Wetlands ............................................................................................................................3-26

Figure 18 – Wetlands ............................................................................................................................3-27

Figure 19 – Wetlands ............................................................................................................................3-28

Figure 20 – REC Map............................................................................................................................3-48

Tables

Table 1 – General Assessment Noise Analysis Results....................................................................3-11

Table 2 – Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment.................................................................3-12

Table 3 – Impacted Wetlands ..............................................................................................................3-29

Table 4 – Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................3-34

Table 5 – Population and Households 2000 and 2010 Census........................................................3-42

Table 6 – Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010.............................................................................3-42

Table 7 – Employment by Major Industry, Logan County .............................................................3-43

Table 8 – Median Household Income, Census 2000 and 2010 (Estimated)...................................3-43

Table 9 – Potential REC Impacts .........................................................................................................3-49

Appendices

Appendix A Hazardous Materials (Database Search; PESA)

Appendix B Coordination and Consultation

Appendix C Noise and Vibration Analysis

Appendix D Soils Report

Appendix E Field Studies Report

Appendix F Wetland Delineation Report

Appendix G Air Quality Analysis

Appendix H Build Alternative Design Drawings
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project iv Environmental Assessment

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

C Coefficient of Conservation

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon Monoxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-Weighted Decibels

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EcoCAT Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool

EDR Environmental Data Resources

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Environmental Management Agency

FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

FQI Floristic Quality Index

FRA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration

HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition

HSR High-Speed Rail

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

INAI Illlinois Natural Areas Inventory

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

IWPA Interagency Wetland Policy Act

MP Milepost (Mile Post)

MPH Miles per Hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priority Listing

NR National Register

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project v Environmental Assessment

PM Particulate Matter

PNS Project Notification System

ppm Parts Per Million

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

SFR Single-Family Residences

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

UP Union Pacific

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WOUS Waters of the United States
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 1-1 Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), in coordination with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), has proposed to construct a siding track along the mainline service line 

of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) from 1200N Road south to 450 Avenue in Logan County, 

Illinois. The “Project” spans 8.55 miles from Milepost (MP) 161.90 at 1200N Road in the 

unincorporated community of Fogarty south to Milepost 170.45 at 450 Avenue in the 

unincorporated community of Mount Fulcher, just north of the Logan/Sangamon County 

border. The Project entails the construction of an additional siding track that runs parallel to the 

mainline track, which would provide for uninterrupted use of the mainline track for both 

passenger and freight operations. It provides passing opportunities for trains moving in the 

opposite direction as well as slower trains moving in the same direction. Additionally, 

reconstruction of the existing mainline track and improvements to signaling and at-grade railroadway crossings are planned. No stationhouses are located in the Project limits and no new 

stationhouses are planned to be constructed within the Project limits. The Project is a section of 

the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor Project ("Original Project") approved 

by FRA under the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) dated January 2003 and Record 

of Decision (ROD)dated January 8, 2004).

As proponents of an action supported by federal funds, IDOT and FRA must comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the 

impacts of their actions on the natural, social, economic, and cultural environment and to 

disclose considerations in a public document. The NEPA process is intended to help public 

officials make decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences and to 

take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40 CFR § 1500.1).

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to provide FRA and the public with a 

full accounting of the environmental impacts of the alternatives for the Project. The EA serves as 

the primary document to facilitate review of the proposed action by federal, state, and local 

agencies, and the public.

The 2003 FEIS included a proposal to construct 22 miles of freight siding as part of the Original 

Project. However, the exact locations of the sidings were not determined in the 2003 FEIS or the 

2004 ROD. As such, the construction and location of a siding specifically in Elkhart was not 

considered in the 2003 FEIS or the 2004 ROD for the Original Project, and it must be evaluated 

to meet the requirements of NEPA. This EA serves as a reevaluation of the environmental 

information and findings of the Original Project to address impacts related to the Project.

1.2 Project History

In January 2003, IDOT completed a FEIS for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor (“Original 

Project”). The Preferred Alternative from the FEIS included the provision of high-speed rail
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 1-2 Environmental Assessment

service, operating at 110 mph, along the existing Chicago to St. Louis Amtrak route south of 

Dwight, Illinois. No action was proposed between Chicago and Dwight. The proposed service 

consisted of three round trips per day. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in January 2004. 

Since the ROD, IDOT has made major progress on the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor in 

cooperation with the UPRR, which owns the right-of-way (ROW) south of Joliet and operates 

rail freight services in the corridor. Extensive rehabilitation and upgrading of the Chicago to St. 

Louis corridor track and signal systems have been undertaken, and four-quadrant gates have 

been installed at many at-grade crossings in the corridor. As previously mentioned in Section 

1.1, the 2003 FEIS did not include exact locations for sidings. Therefore, as the location for this 

Project has been determined, a separate reevaluation document was necessary to access 

potential impacts of the Project. This EA serves as that reevaluation document.

1.3 Study Area

The study area covers an 8.55 mile corridor in Logan County along the UPRR mainline located 

between 1200N Road in Fogarty, an unincorporated community in Broadwell Township at the 

north terminus, and 450 Avenue in Mount Fulcher, an unincorporated community in Hurlbut 

Township, at the south terminus (see Figure 1). The City of Lincoln, the county seat of Logan 

County, is located approximately four miles north of the northern terminus of the corridor with 

the southern terminus of the corridor ending approximately one-half mile from the 

Logan/Sangamon County border. The Illinois state capital, Springfield, is located approximately 

15 miles south of the study area corridor in Sangamon County. The Villages of Broadwell and 

Elkhart, as well as the unincorporated rural communities of Fogarty and Mount Fulcher, are 

located within the Project study area. The development of river, rail, and road transportation 

systems in this part of the state were keys to early settlement and served as a means of traveling 

to new lands further to the west. The Chicago & Mississippi Railroad was this area’s first 

railroad and it served as a direct link between Chicago and St. Louis. The platting and 

incorporation of Elkhart (1855 and 1861), and Broadwell (1856) are directly connected to the 

arrival of the rail line. The underlying structure of the original transportation systems and 

associated urban development remains in place and has provided an enduring framework that 

later systems have incorporated and built upon and that remains important to the present.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 1-3 Environmental Assessment

Figure 1 – Project Study Area
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 1-4 Environmental Assessment

1.4 Project Purpose and Need

Original Project Purpose and Need

Under NEPA, purpose and need are closely linked. Need is the definition of a problem, while 

the purpose is an intention to address the problem. The purpose explains why the sponsoring 

agency is proposing an action that may have environmental impacts. Further, the purpose 

provides the basis for selecting reasonable and practicable alternatives for consideration, 

comparing the alternatives, and selecting the preferred alternative (40 CFR § 1502.13).

For over a decade, IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago 

to St. Louis. The Chicago to St. Louis corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail System plan 

to develop and implement a 21st Century regional passenger rail system. The need for the 

Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project is drawn from the need for the Original Project.

According to the ridership estimates prepared in the 2011, Chicago to St. Louis and Revenue 

Forecast Report, the mode split for annual person trips in the corridor is 97.5 percent for 

automobile, 1.1 percent for air, 1.3 percent for rail (Amtrak), and 0.2 percent for bus. For there to 

be a more balanced transportation system in the corridor, trips must be diverted from the 

predominant modes of automobile and air. To achieve this, either a new transportation mode 

must be introduced or improvements to an existing, less frequently used transportation mode 

must be made. The conditions that will attract travelers from automobile and air travel to a new 

or improved mode of transportation are reduced travel time, service reliability, and safety. In 

addition to diverting travelers, the new or improved mode, as part of the entire transportation 

network, must result in improvements to the environment relative to air pollution and energy 

consumption. These improvements to the human environment will be realized through the use 

of modern, state-of-the-art equipment and efficiency. This Project focuses on improving rail 

transportation by introducing HSR service to replace the existing passenger rail service. Three 

important needs are reduced travel time/improved service reliability, safety, and improving the 

human environment. 

Reducing travel time and improving service reliability are of paramount importance to 

increasing the viability of an improved mode of transportation. The HSR service would reduce 

travel time between Chicago and St. Louis, resulting in travel times that are shorter than can be 

achieved by automobile or bus. Additionally, downtown-to-downtown travel times by rail 

would be comparable to air service. Reliability, relative to HSR, is a product of frequency of 

service, on-time performance, and accessibility. The HSR proposal advanced would include 

substantial improvements in terms of frequency of service and on-time performance over the 

existing Amtrak service and would also be more, or as accessible, as existing and future 

proposed air service. The HSR service would also not be subject to highway congestion near the 

Chicago and St. Louis downtown areas or airports.

To divert travelers from automobile and air modes, potential HSR passengers must also believe 

use of the service is safe, as well as faster and more reliable. Safety pertains to passengers 

getting to and using the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project parking facilities at the 

HSR stations, walking through the stations to board the service, and traveling on the HSR 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 1-5 Environmental Assessment

service. Safety enhancements included as part of the HSR proposal advanced would result in 

improvements to overall rail passenger safety when compared to existing rail service and the 

other modes of travel.

Provision of a transportation network with a more balanced use of the different modes would 

result in benefits to the environment. The HSR proposal would include modern, state-of-the-art

rail equipment that would result in an overall reduction in passenger transportation-related 

emissions in the corridor when air quality is considered. Emissions from existing rail service, 

with the exception of nitrogen oxides, are less than either auto or air travel when compared on a 

passenger-mile basis. As a result, diversions of travel from these modes to HSR service would 

result in reduced volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide emission levels in the 

corridor. Additionally, implementation of the HSR proposal advanced would result in an 

overall reduction in energy consumed by the alternative modes of travel in the corridor. 

Existing rail passenger service in the corridor is currently more efficient than air and automobile 

travel, in terms of energy consumption per passenger-mile, and the proposed HSR service 

would improve upon this efficiency.

Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project Purpose and Need

The Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project is an important component of the Original

Project. The purpose of the proposed Project is to make improvements which would reduce 

passenger train delays that occur because of frequent trains combined with a lack of passing 

opportunity. A new siding, gate reinforcements, and signal system upgrades are required to 

accommodate the increase in train speed. Provision of a section of extended second main track 

(siding) in the vicinity of Elkhart addresses operational needs allowing for dual track use 

between freights and both corridor and long-distance trains to occur without impeding the 

passenger trains’ progress. Identification of this track arrangement to be located in the Elkhart 

area was determined by UPRR’s capacity analysis of the corridor’s operation which resulted in 

optimized locations for sidings/extended second main track sections.

1.5 Applicable Regulations

The following statutes and orders apply to the proposed action and were considered during the 

preparation of the EA: 

• Endangered Species Act, 50 CFR Part 17

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR Part 600

• Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC § 4321 et seq., signed 

January 1, 1970

• Public Law 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376 

• Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 401 

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC § 470 

• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC § 303 

• Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1344 

• Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC § 460 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 1-6 Environmental Assessment

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, 42 USC chapter 61, 49 CFR part 24

• Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977 

• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977 

• Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994 

• Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000 

• Federal Railroad Administration, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 

28545 (May 26, 1999) 

• Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978 

• Federal Register, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule, 49 

CFR Parts 222 and 229, April 27, 2005 

• Illinois Environmental Protection Act of 1970 (415 ILCS 5)

• Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 (20 ILCS 830)

• “Implementation Procedures for the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989” (17 IAC 1090)

• Illinois Department of Transportation Wetlands Action Plan

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources Water Resources, Construction in Floodways of 

Rivers, Lakes and Streams (17 IAC Ch. I, Part 3700).

• Compliance with 70 ILCS 405 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act. 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 2-1 Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

The alternatives evaluated in this EA include the (1) No-Build Alternative; and (2) the Build 

Alternative. The Build Alternative provides three main components: (1) Provision for a parallel 

siding track to the UPRR mainline track; (2) Reconstruction and extension of the existing 

mainline track, which includes upgraded signalization; and (3) Improvements to at-grade 

rail/roadway crossings. The Project study area covers 8.55 miles through the incorporated 

villages of Elkhart and Broadwell (2010 combined population of approximately 550) and the 

unincorporated communities of Fogarty and Mount Fulcher. Fogarty is located at the northern 

terminus of the Project study area at 1200N Road, while 450 Avenue in Mount Fulcher serves as 

the southern terminus. Elkhart and Broadwell are approximately 3.75 miles apart (center-oftown to center-of-town). The land between these municipal districts is “rural” land consisting of 

agricultural land, pastureland, grasslands, and open fields. The Project study area is located in 

the southwestern region of Logan County close to the Sangamon County border. There are no 

train stations or grade separated bridge crossings in the Project study area. The planned 

improvements require approximately 29.15 acres of additional ROW and construction 

easements to accommodate construction of new siding track, reconstruction of the existing 

UPRR mainline track, and reconfiguration and realignment of at-grade roadway crossings.

Impacts to at-grade road crossings that fall under IDOT’s jurisdiction are outside the limits of 

this EA, and are being assessed in a separate Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion (CE) Report. 

However, the Elkhart Siding EA does include some road crossing improvements that fall within 

the UPRR’s jurisdiction, as discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.

2.2 Evaluated Alternatives

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed Project would not be implemented. The existing 

single mainline track and the existing siding track, between just north of Broadwell and just 

south of Elkhart, would remain unchanged and would receive routine maintenance with no 

additional track construction/replacement, or siding construction. Existing culverts, roadway 

crossings, crossing gates, pedestrian crossings, and signal equipment would remain 

unimproved. 

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the Original Project. It 

would not enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on the UPRR line in the 

section between just north of Broadwell and just south of Elkhart. The No-Build Alternative 

would not provide the operating flexibility required for the growing rail freight traffic and 

maintenance of existing Amtrak rail passenger service.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 2-2 Environmental Assessment

2.2.2 New Siding Track and Track Construction (Build Alternative)

The Build Alternative includes the proposed improvements shown in Figure 2. Specific elements 

of these improvements include: 

• reconstructing existing siding track (west side) from MP 168.36 to MP 170.45;

• extending the siding track by constructing new siding track from MP 161.90 to MP 

168.36 (east side); 

• reconstructing and replacing the existing UPRR mainline track where it connects with 

the siding; 

• installing new signal equipment; 

• installing new crossing gates with associated apparatus; 

• replacing and/or reconstructing existing culverts; 

• installing new switch gears; 

• reconfiguring turning radii at roadway crossings; 

• reconstructing pedestrian walkway crossings; 

• reconstructing and realigning roadway approaches; and

• relocating or closing access driveways and pedestrian crossings. 

Provision of a section of extended second main track (siding) in the vicinity of Elkhart 

addresses operational needs. The siding allows for dual track use between freights and both 

corridor and long-distance trains to occur without impeding the passenger trains’ progress. 

Identification of the need for this track arrangement to be located in the Elkhart area was 

determined by UPRR’s capacity analysis of the corridor’s operation which resulted in 

optimized locations for sidings/extended second main track sections. The Elkhart Siding and 

Track Construction improvements, proposed as an integral element of the overall upgrades 

planned for the Chicago-to-St. Louis Corridor, would enable passenger service up to 110 mph 

throughout most of the study area. The current schedule of five (5) daily round trip passenger 

trains is anticipated to be maintained as part of the proposal. Of the five trips, four will be HSR 

and one is the existing long-distance Amtrak Texas Eagle service.

There are four at-grade rail/roadway crossings in the Project study area, two of which are 

located in Broadwell and Elkhart as shown in Figures 3-5. The other two rail/roadway crossings 

are in rural areas, noted as primarily being shrubland. Both crossings connect the frontage road 

on the east side of the UPRR tracks with Illinois Route 66 on the west side of the tracks. There 

are no grade-separated crossings with roadways in the Project study area. 

There are eleven culvert crossings allowing for existing surface drainage swales to drain on 

either side of or underneath the rail line. Ten of the 11 culverts will be replaced and one will be 

extended. None of the culvert crossings require bridge replacements in the Project study area 

and there are no intersecting crossings on the UPRR mainline with other rail lines. Refer to 

Figures 6-11 for culvert locations. The Project would require the acquisition of approximately 

29.15 acres of ROW.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 2-3 Environmental Assessment

Figure 2 – Proposed Improvements
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 2-4 Environmental Assessment

Figure 3 – At-Grade Crossings
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 2-5 Environmental Assessment

Figure 4 – At-Grade Crossings
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 2-6 Environmental Assessment

Figure 5 – At-Grade Crossings
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-1 Environmental Assessment

3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation

This section describes the existing environmental resources within the Project study area and 

analyzes the potential beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources from the two

alternatives retained for detailed study pursuant to FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impact (64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)). The environmental resources have been 

categorized into three groups: the physical environment, ecological systems, and the human 

environment. These groups are presented in subsections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively.

3.1 Physical Environment

This subsection includes a discussion of the physical environmental resources potentially 

impacted by the proposed rail siding, track construction, and associated improvements 

throughout the Project study area. The resource categories of solid waste disposal, timber and 

mineral resources, and coastal zone management are not applicable to the proposed Project due 

to the geographic location and physical aspects of the Project study area and are therefore not 

included in the following sections. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified.

3.1.1 Air Quality

Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere. Many man-made pollutants result from the 

incomplete combustion of fuels including coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. The principal 

factors affecting air pollution concentrations with respect to transportation projects are traffic, 

emissions, mode type, terrain, meteorological parameters, and ambient air quality.

In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants considered 

harmful to public health and the environment. These are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Areas that 

do not meet the standards for these pollutants are designated as nonattainment areas and states 

must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve the air quality in these areas and 

bring them into attainment by specific deadlines set by the EPA.

Federal agencies responsible for an action occurring in a nonattainment are required to 

determine if the action conforms to the applicable SIP. The EPA has developed two sets of 

conformity regulations:

• Transportation Conformity - Transportation projects developed or approved under the 

Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 

Part 93, Subpart A; and

• General Conformity - Other projects 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-2 Environmental Assessment

This Project is not being developed or approved under the Federal Aid Highway Program or 

Federal Transit Act, therefore it is being reviewed using the general conformity regulations. As 

such, this Project requires a conformity determination for each pollutant where the total of 

direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment area caused by a federal action would equal or 

exceed EPA-specified significant threshold values. In Illinois, general conformity criteria and 

procedures are set forth in 35 Illinois Administrative Code 255.

3.1.1.1 Existing Conditions

The Project study area is located entirely within Logan County. Logan County is currently in 

attainment with the National and Illinois Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO, PM10, Ozone, 

and/or PM2.5.

3.1.1.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on air quality.

For the Build Alternative, the total annual estimated emissions generated along the Chicago-St. 

Louis HSR corridor are provided in Appendix G. The estimated increases in emissions of each 

pollutant are less than the general conformity applicability threshold values. General 

conformity applicability threshold values for both VOC and NOx emissions are each an increase 

in 100 tons per year. These estimated increases over the entire Chicago to St. Louis corridor are 

2.5 additional tons of NOx and 0.13 tons of VOCs and are both below the general conformity 

thresholds.

The Build Alternative is unlikely to cause or exacerbate a violation of applicable NAAQS. It is 

also unlikely that the construction of the Build Alternative, which would follow state and local 

regulations regarding construction activities and equipment, would cause a violation of the 

applicable standards. As a result, the Project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse 

impacts to public health related to air pollutants and air toxics or contributions to greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions.

The Build Alternative may result in temporary construction-related increases in vehicle exhaust 

and emissions, and airborne particulate matter during equipment operation and the hauling of 

material. Construction dust associated with exposed soils would be controlled, if necessary, 

with the application of water and other approved dust palliatives. In addition, any 

hydrocarbons, NO2, SO2 emissions, as well as airborne particulates created by fugitive dust 

plumes, would be rapidly dissipated because the location of the site where the prevailing winds 

allow for good air circulation. Overall, there could be a short-term, temporary degradation of 

local air quality during construction activities. Standard best management practices (BMPs) 

would be utilized during the construction process in order to minimize dust. Construction of 

the Build Alternative could improve air quality in the region in the long-term if fewer 

automobiles are utilized in the region and more people choose HSR as a transportation option. 

Refer to Appendix G for Air Quality data.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-3 Environmental Assessment

3.1.2 Energy

The No-Build Alternative would not require construction. Passenger rail service under the NoBuild Alternative would be a continuation of the existing five daily round trips between 

Chicago and St. Louis. Increased ridership resulting from the normal travel growth in the 

corridor, for the foreseeable future, would be accommodated by adding more cars to existing 

trains. Therefore, no changes in energy consumption are expected.

Construction of the Build Alternative would require consumption of energy for processing 

materials, construction activities, and maintenance for the new rail constructed within the 

Project limits. Energy by vehicles in the Project study area where the proposed improvements 

would take place may increase during construction due to possible traffic delays.

During construction of the improvements, additional energy would be expended beyond what 

would be used for normal operations. This additional energy would be consumed on a shortterm basis as required for improvement of the existing siding track, construction of the new 

extended siding track, reconstruction of the mainline track and associated improvements to 

existing intersecting roadways. However, once the Project is operational, long-term energy 

savings are expected from more energy-efficient operations throughout the Project study area.

As with the No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative would be a continuation of the five

daily round trips between Chicago and St. Louis. As documented in the 2003 FEIS, travel by rail 

is more energy efficient than travel by air or private automobile. Since rail capacity can be 

increased at a relatively small incremental cost, any substantial increase in rail ridership that 

will arise from implementation of HSR service will result in conservation of travel-related 

energy. Additionally, locomotives, that would be used after construction of the Build 

Alternative, are designed to be more energy efficient than current locomotives. Under the Build 

Alternative, as HSR ridership increases and other less energy-efficient modes of travel 

experience a decrease, there would be potential for an overall net decrease in energy 

consumption.

3.1.3 Floodplains

Federal protection of floodplains is afforded by Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” and by implementation of federal regulations under 44 CFR part 9. These 

regulations direct federal agencies to undertake actions to avoid impacts on floodplain areas by 

structures built in flood-prone areas. 

3.1.3.1 Existing Conditions

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility for 

identifying flood-prone areas. FEMA conducted flood studies and issued mapping in 2011 for 

Logan County. There are several small floodplains located within the Project study area that 

are shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). See Figures 6-10 for FIRM maps for 

the project area.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-4 Environmental Assessment

Two sections of the mainline track fall within floodplain zones: At approximately MP 165.00, 

about 1.5 miles north of Elkhart, a narrow band of the Elkhart Slough floodplain extends 

diagonally across the mainline track (east-to-west), and is designated as Zone A. Also, between 

MP 167.00 and MP 168.00, an approximate 0.75-mile band of the Elkhart Slough floodplain 

extends from mid-Elkhart to approximately 0.5 miles south of Elkhart, and runs longitudinally 

along the west side of the mainline track. The floodplain extends onto either side of the railroad 

tracks for several hundred feet, and is designated as Zone AE. FEMA defines Zone A as areas 

with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year 

mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood 

elevations are shown within these zones. Zone AE is defined as the base floodplain where base 

flood elevations are provided. AE Zones replace a former mapping designation of A1-A30 

Zones. Zones A and AE are both defined as areas with a one percent annual chance of flood 

(100-year flood).
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-5 Environmental Assessment

Figure 6 – FIRM Map
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-6 Environmental Assessment

Figure 7 – FIRM Map
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-7 Environmental Assessment

Figure 8 – FIRM Map
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-8 Environmental Assessment

Figure 9 – FIRM Map
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-9 Environmental Assessment

Figure 10 – FIRM Map
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-10 Environmental Assessment

3.1.3.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not require any construction and would therefore not impact 

any 100-year floodplains. 

The Build Alternative may permanently and temporarily impact 100-year floodplains within the 

Project study area. Three culverts occur within Zone A and two within Zone AE floodplains. 

Culvert replacement and /or widening may cause both permanent and temporary impact to 

these floodplains depending on the final engineering plans. Based on 90 percent engineering 

plans, the longitudinal impacts would be 2.22 acres and transverse impacts would be 1.46 acres. 

Per the 2004 ROD, work should be performed below the 100-year flood elevation, and as a 

result, this Project should not encroach upon the base floodplain elevation.

The Build Alternative would require eleven culvert crossings allowing for existing surface 

drainage swales to drain on either side of or underneath the rail line. None of the intermittent 

stream crossings require bridge replacement or installation in the Project study area. A swale is 

a man-made drainage system feature. An intermittent stream (as found on USGS mapping) is a 

natural drainage feature that does not have an observable flow during the entire year and is 

subject to fluctuations in precipitation, infiltration versus runoff, and evaporation rates. 

Permits

A stormwater permit would be required for all hydraulic structures. A permit would also be 

required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources (IDNR) Office of Water Resources (OWR) for all structure replacements/

extensions within federal and state jurisdictional streams and waterways. Culvert replacements 

and extensions required for Project construction are anticipated to comply with the IDNR OWR 

Statewide Permit, which does not require the permit application to be filed if certain

construction requirements are met, as detailed in IDNR Statewide Permit 12. The IDNR OWR 

permit process includes floodplain considerations. 

Mitigation

Areas where temporary floodplain impacts occur would be restored following Project 

construction. Permanent impacts would require proper sizing of hydraulic structures and 

compensatory storage where required.

3.1.4 Noise and Vibration

3.1.4.1 Existing Conditions

An assessment of the potential for the Project to cause noise and vibration impacts was 

accomplished using the procedures provided by the FRA High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration, September 2012). The assessment evaluated noise and vibration for

train operations under existing, No-Build and Build Alternatives.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-11 Environmental Assessment

The FRA screening procedure is used to identify sensitive receptors where the next level of 

analysis is appropriate. Using this approach, sensitive receptors with the potential for noise and 

vibration impacts are identified. Receptor locations within the screening distance are then 

evaluated using the general assessment level of analysis. If impacts are identified in the general 

assessment, a detailed analysis would be warranted.

Noise

The Project study area covers an 8.55 mile corridor, most of which is located in rural areas. 

However, the rail line passes through two municipalities, (Broadwell and Elkhart) and two

unincorporated communities (Fogarty and Mount Fulcher). Three categories are used for 

screening distances in assessing noise impacts: urban/noisy suburban, unobstructed (300 feet 

from center of mainline track); urban/noisy suburban, intervening buildings (200 feet from 

center of mainline track); and quiet suburban/rural (500 feet from center of mainline track). 

Only single-family residences within these two municipalities are within the FRA’s urban/noisy 

suburban, unobstructed screening distances). The overall noise levels receive contributions from 

vehicular traffic, passenger train traffic, and freight train traffic. Existing noise levels for the 

Project study area can be found in Table 1. The location of the noise receptors may be found on 

exhibits in Appendix C.

Table 1 – General Assessment Noise Analysis Results

Receptor 

No.

RR Mile 

Post 

(Approx.)

Side 

of 

Track

Distance to 

Existing/

Siding 

Track, feet 

(Approx.)

Receptor 

Type1 –

Land-Use

Category2

(Urban/

Rural)

Project Noise

Levels, dBA

(Ldn or Leq)3

Build Increase 

Over Existing

Main/Siding, 

dBA

(Ldn or Leq)3

Allowed 

Increase 

(Moderate 

Impact), dBA

(Ldn or Leq)3

Impact 

Determination

Existing/

No-Build

Build/w

Main

Track

Build/w 

Siding 

Track

R1 163.28 E 250/230 SFR-2, U 50 48 48 -2/-2 3 No Impact

R2 163.30 E 250/230 SFR-2, U 50 48 48 -2/-2 3 No Impact

R3 163.35 E 275/255 Com-3, U 49 47 48 -2/-1 8 No Impact

R4 163.37 W 280/300 SFR-2, U 49 47 46 -2/-3 3 No Impact

R5 163.44 E 260/240 SFR-2, U 49 47 48 -2/-1 3 No Impact

R6 163.46 E 260/240 Com-3, U 49 47 48 -2/-1 8 No Impact

R7 163.48 E 250/230 Com-3, U 50 48 48 -2/-2 8 No Impact

R8 163.51 E 250/230 Com-3, U 50 48 48 -2/-2 8 No Impact

R9 163.57 E 250/230 SFR-2, U 50 48 48 -2/-2 3 No Impact

R10 163.58 E 260/240 SFR-2, U 49 47 48 -2/-1 3 No Impact

R11 163.87 E 265/245 SFR-2, R 49 47 48 -2/-1 3 No Impact

R12 167.07 E 280/260 SFR-2, U 49 47 47 -2/-2 3 No Impact

R13 167.10 E 275/255 Com-3, U 49 47 47 -2/-2 8 No Impact

R14 167.11 E 270/250 Com-3, U 49 47 48 -2/-1 8 No Impact

R15 167.20 E 270/250 Com-3, U 49 47 48 -2/-1 8 No Impact

R16 167.24 E 275/255 Com-3, U 49 47 47 -2/-2 8 No Impact

R17 168.61 E 255/275 Com-3, R 49 47 47 -2/-2 8 No Impact

1SFR = single family residence, Com = Commercial building, U = Urban, R = Rural

2Land-Use Category 2 – Residences and buildings where people normally sleep;

Land-Use Category 3 – Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use 3Noise Metric Ldn or Leq is dependent on the Land-Use Category: Land-Use Category 2 has a Noise Metric (dBA) Ldn and Land-Use 

Category 3 has a Noise Metric (dBA) Leq
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-12 Environmental Assessment

Vibration

The screening assessment for potential vibration effects is based on land use coupled with 

general assumptions for screening distance obtained from the FRA High-Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, September 2012). The screening distance for 

residential land uses with infrequent events along a corridor with speeds less than 100 mph is 

60 feet. For speeds between 100 and 200 mph, the screening distance is 100 feet. The FRA 

general assessment procedures for vibration were used to analyze existing vibration levels. 

Table 2 includes information for existing vibration levels, which are the same as the No-Build 

Alternative. The location of the vibration receptors may be found on exhibits in Appendix C.

Table 2 – Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment

Receptor No.

Distance to 

Existing/Siding

Track, feet

Existing 

Vibration 

Level, VdB

No-Build 

Vibration 

Level, VdB

Build Vibration 

Level, VdB

Increase in 

Vibration Level,VdB FRA Criteria 

(Infrequent 

Events), VdB1

Impact 

Existing Determination

Track

Siding 

Track

Existing 

Track

Siding 

Track

Broadwell: R1 95/75 71 71 74 * 3 N/A 80 No

Broadwell: R2 65/45 74 74 77 74 3 0 80 No

Broadwell: R3 65/45 74 74 77 74 3 0 80 No

Elkhart: R4 90/70 71 71 74 * 3 N/A 80 No

Elkhart: R5 65/45 74 74 77 74 3 0 80 No

1 VdB is a logarithmic scaling of vibration magnitude

N/A – Exceeds the screening distance for trains with speeds less than 100 mph as found on the siding track.

3.1.4.2 Potential Impacts

Noise

The No-Build Alternative would not create any change in noise impacts from the existing 

conditions since there would be no change in passenger train operations. Also, all Amtrak trains 

passing through the Project study area (between MP 161.9 and MP 170.45) make no stops.

The 2004 ROD noise analysis used the distance of 250 feet as the limit of the analysis. As 

stipulated in FRA 2012 publication, the screening distance increased in urban areas to 300 feet 

and in rural areas to 500 feet. Therefore, the only receptors considered for analysis in this EA are 

located between 250 and 300 feet in urban areas and 250 to 500 feet in rural areas. The proposed 

Project improvements were evaluated for noise impacts associated with the construction of the 

Build Alternative, as previously detailed in Section 2.2. Table 1 includes the existing /No-Build 

noise levels and the noise levels for the Build Alternative. Seventeen (17) sensitive receptors 

were identified within the screening distance. 

While vehicular traffic contributes to the overall noise level, the construction of new siding track 

and reconstruction of the existing mainline track would not change vehicular traffic 

substantially since the existing traffic flow is expected to change minimally with the Build 

Alternative. Therefore, vehicular traffic was not considered in the impact evaluation. Also, the 

Build Alternative should not re-distribute or change vehicular traffic patterns and would not 

add capacity to the overall highway/street system. However, due to the study area being within 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-13 Environmental Assessment

an active rail corridor, at the three municipal locations, with the trains being the dominant noise 

source, the passenger train traffic and freight train traffic were taken into consideration. The 

impact evaluation is based on the comparison of the existing train noise and the train noise 

under the Build Alternative condition. 

There would be no noise impacts on sensitive receptors from the Build Alternative since the 

current five daily round-trip passenger trains traveling between Chicago and St. Louis would 

continue to pass through the Project study area as those passenger trains currently do. . 

Likewise, since no changes in the levels of freight train noise are expected, the overall noise 

levels would remain similar to existing conditions for freight trains. Since there are no stops in 

any of the urban areas in the Project study area, only slow-downs to conform to speed limits in 

populated areas, the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative are not expected to 

adversely impact any of the noise receptors. As shown in Table 1, the Build Alternative would 

be two dBA levels lower than the existing noise levels. An impact to a noise receptor would 

only occur if there had been an increase in dBA levels of three dBA or more. It should be noted 

that a difference of two dBA is not considered a discernible/noticeable difference. 

Trucks and machinery used for construction produce noise which may affect some land uses 

and activities during the construction period. Residents adjacent to the study area corridor 

would at some time experience perceptible temporary construction noise from implementation 

of the Build Alternative. During construction, all equipment will be in good working order and 

maintenance, including the exhaust systems. Additionally, any temporary impacts would cease 

immediately after the construction activity is completed. 

Vibration

Sensitive receptors identified within the 60-foot and 100-foot screening distance were evaluated 

for potential vibration impacts. Five sensitive receptors (three in Broadwell and two in Elkhart)

were identified between the 60-foot and 100-foot distance. 

Since passenger trains would not be stopping in any of the population centers, there would be 

no alterations in vibration impacts for both the No-Build and the Build Alternative as train 

speeds would be virtually the same under either scenario. Therefore, only vibration effects for 

freight trains were included in the analysis in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the change in speed 

for the Build Alternative, in relation to calculating the VdB, did not result in great differences 

between the existing and the build conditions. Even with the increase of 3 VdB for the Build 

Alternative, the increases were still considerably below the threshold criteria of 80 VdB.

Based on the ground-borne vibration analysis for the study, vibration impacts are not 

anticipated as part of the proposed Project for either the No-Build or Build Alternative. There 

are no ground-borne noise impacts associated with vibration as the ground-borne noise levels 

are less than the FRA impact criteria. Refer to Appendix C for Noise and Vibration data.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-14 Environmental Assessment

Mitigation

UPRR will ensure that all equipment will be in good working order and maintained, including 

the exhaust systems.

3.1.5 Agriculture

3.1.5.1 Existing Conditions

Agriculture is the primary land use in the Project study area except for the urban areas of 

Elkhart and Broadwell. The main agricultural crops are row crops, primarily corn and soybeans. 

Refer to Appendix E Field Studies Report for a field survey from 2012 which include vegetation 

cover types within the Project study area including agricultural land. The existing UPRR track 

severed whatever farm properties were in existence when the track was originally constructed. 

Because there are no new alignments associated with the Build Alternative, only the addition of 

a siding track adjacent and contiguous with the existing track, there are no severed farm units 

resulting from the proposed improvements under the Build Alternative. Note on field survey, 

the report includes areas outside of the scope of this EA.

Soils/Prime and Important Farmlands

Soil types located within the Project study area include Broadwell, Spaulding, Buckhart, and 

Ipava. Ipava is considered a prime farmland soil.

Illinois soils fall into one of three categories: (1) Prime Farmland; (2) Important Farmland; and 

(3) Other Land as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and 

oilseed crops. It may exist as cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but is 

not designated in urbanized areas or in bodies of water. Farmland of statewide importance is 

land, other than prime farmland, that is also highly productive but generally less productive 

than prime farmland and/or possesses greater restrictions that negatively affect its use for 

agricultural purposes. Other land may have the potential for use as farmland, but some 

restriction(s) prevents its use for agriculture.

Coordination with NRCS is not required because the proposed ROW and proposed easements, 

outside municipal limits, total 1.5 acres per mile, which is less than the three acres per mile 

stipulated in the May 2008 Cooperative Agreement between IDOT and the Illinois Department 

of Agriculture and the IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment (BDE) manual (June 2011) as 

the trigger point in which coordination is required for transportation projects. Additionally, 

Logan County does not have an approved Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) program

necessary to evaluate prime farmland impacts.

Agricultural Zoning

There is no agricultural zoning in Logan County.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-15 Environmental Assessment

Private Farm Crossings

There are no identified private farm crossings in the Project study area. The farm crossing 

designated at MP 166.20 is accessed via a public frontage road that is rarely used by farmers in 

the area.

3.1.5.2 Potential Impacts 

A total of 29.15 acres of ROW would be impacted by the Build Alternative, of which 11.77 acres 

is prime farmland soil.

Severed Farm Units

A farm unit is defined as one or more parcels of land that are farmed as a single operation. It is 

farmed under one management, although it may be under multiple ownerships. As defined in 

the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, revised August 

2001 (LESA), a severed farm parcel, created when a tract of farmland is traversed by a corridor 

project, results in dividing one larger tract of land into two smaller parcels. Although access is 

still maintained to the disjoined parcels, the owner/operator is inconvenienced by the necessity 

of farming two smaller parcels of land rather than one larger tract of land. Because the farmland 

adjacent to the UPRR has already been severed, there are no new severed farm parcels. 

Therefore, the No-Build and Build Alternatives do not create any severed farm parcels.

Severance Management Zones

Severance management zones are those areas of a farm, which, after being diagonally 

intersected by a proposed improvement (such as new railroad ROW), are adversely affected by 

the resulting triangular shape. These zones often cause problems for continued farming. The 

resulting triangular design makes it difficult to turn a tractor and farm implements without 

damaging or removing plants or a causing misapplication of farm chemicals, which often result 

in production loss. Since no one parcel under the same ownership exceeds the minimum five 

acres, it has been determined there will be no severed management zones in the Project area 

resulting from the proposed improvements under the Build Alternative.

Uneconomical Remnants

As defined in LESA, uneconomical remnants are parcels of farmland that are severed from 

larger tracts of farmland and are too small to be economically or practically farmed by the 

existing owner/operator. Since there are no severed farm parcels within the Project study area, 

there are also no uneconomical remnants; therefore, the No-Build and Build Alternatives do not 

create any uneconomical remnants.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-16 Environmental Assessment

Landlocked Parcels – No Access

There are no landlocked farm parcels being created by the planned improvements in the Project 

study area. The farm crossing designated at MP 166.20 is accessed via a public frontage road 

that is rarely used by farmers in the area.

Agricultural Protection Areas

The Agricultural Areas Conservation and Protection Act, enacted in 1980, allow for parcels of 

land greater than 350 acres in size to be designated as agricultural protection areas. No known 

agricultural protection areas in the Project study area will be affected by the proposed 

improvements under the Build Alternative.

Agricultural Income Loss

Based on limited ROW land acquisition required to implement the proposed improvements 

under the Build Alternative in the Project study area, the loss in agricultural income would be 

negligible. No farm residences or agricultural buildings would be affected by the Build 

Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not impact any agricultural area.

Prime Farmland

Although Tama, Ipava, Osco, and Buckhart are considered prime farmland soil in Logan 

County (see Appendix D), the areas within the Project study area that have these soils are located 

on land not actively used, or unlikely to be used, for crops/farms. Proposed improvements 

under the Build Alternative would have minimal impact on these prime farmland soils, and 

agricultural soils in general. As stated before, approximately 11.77 acres of prime farmland 

would be impacted that includes temporary and permanent easements.

The No-Build Alternative would result in no changes to the agricultural land along the Project 

study area.

For the Build Alternative, there would be minimal impacts to agricultural land along the Project 

area, resulting in no measurable losses in crop productivity. A total of 29.15 acres of ROW 

would be impacted by the Build Alternative, of which 11.77 acres is prime farmland soil. 

However, none of the proposed ROW acres are located on land utilized for crop production.

Refer to Appendix D for the Soils Report.

3.1.6 Tree Resources

3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions

As documented in the 2012 Fall Field Studies Union Pacific Mile Posts 161.00 to 171.00 Logan 

County report, a screening evaluation of forest and tree resources was conducted for the Elkhart 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-17 Environmental Assessment

Siding and Track Construction Project study area. As the proposed improvements are located 

primarily within the existing railroad ROW, there are few trees that would potentially be 

impacted. The 2012 field studies report indicated that there are no forested areas within the 

Project area. In general, the dominant cover types along the corridor are grassland, hedgerow 

and shrubland. The remaining portions of the Project study area contain developed land which 

is dominant within two urban areas; Broadwell and Elkhart.

Limited pockets or areas of trees, considered shrubland, are located in the Project study area 

along fence-rows or in developed areas. Shrubland cover type consists of shrubs and trees 

shorter than 5m (16.5 ft.) and has a shrub canopy cover of at least 25%. Tree species identified in 

the 2012 field studies report are: 

• common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) 

• eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides)

• American elm (Ulmus americana)

• slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)

Sections of the ROW are heavily disturbed considering the routine vegetative maintenance that 

occurs to ensure that trees do not encroach upon the tracks. Therefore, the majority of the trees 

present within the ROW are small (less than 8 inches, diameter at breast height, DBH).

3.1.6.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact trees as there would be no proposed work or 

construction.

The Build Alternative’s proposed improvements are planned to occur primarily within or 

adjacent to existing railroad ROW. Tree impacts as a result of the proposed Project are 

anticipated to be minimal. Tree removal and mitigation is also discussed in Section 3.2.3.2, 

under the Mitigation subsection of the Threatened and Endangered Species section, specifically 

in regard to the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).

3.2 Ecological Systems

This section describes the ecological systems to be served or affected by the proposed Project. 

Included in this section is a discussion of the water quality and resources, threatened and 

endangered species, and special lands as they relate to the Build Alternative. Where 

appropriate, mitigation measures are identified. The inventory of environmental resources may 

be found in Figures 11-15.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-18 Environmental Assessment

Figure 11 – Environmental Inventory
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-19 Environmental Assessment

Figure 12 – Environmental Inventory
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-20 Environmental Assessment

Figure 13 – Environmental Inventory
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-21 Environmental Assessment

Figure 14 – Environmental Inventory
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-22 Environmental Assessment

Figure 15 – Environmental Inventory
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-23 Environmental Assessment

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US

Wetlands are defined by the USACE and the EPA as:

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Title 33 

CFR Section 328.3 (b) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” requires federal agencies to avoid, to the

extent practicable, short and long-term impacts associated with the destruction or modification 

of wetlands. More specifically, it directs federal agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands 

unless there is no practical alternative. In addition, it states that where wetlands cannot be 

avoided, the proposed action must include all practical measures to minimize harm to the 

wetlands.

For purposes of the Clean Water Act, "Waters of the United States" (WOUS) means: 

(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in 

interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the 

tide; (b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands"; (c) All other waters such as 

interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, 

sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or 

destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any 

such waters: (1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or 

other purposes; (2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or 

foreign commerce; or (3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries 

in interstate commerce; (d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the 

United States under this definition; (e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this definition; (f) The territorial sea; and (g) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other 

than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this 

definition.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC §403) and Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (33 USC § 1344) authorize permits for placement of structures, dredged, or fill 

material into the “Waters of the U.S.” Section 3.2.2 includes information on surface waters for 

the Project study area. The below sections discuss the wetlands found within the Project study 

area. 

3.2.1.1 Existing Conditions

Wetlands in the Project study area were identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping combined with aerial photography

review and field confirmation including wetland delineations and surveys. The delineated 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-24 Environmental Assessment

wetlands may be found in Figures 16-19. Wetlands encountered fall within the Salt Creek 

drainage area of the Salt Watershed, hydrologic unit code (HUC) 07130009. Refer to the 

Wetland Delineation Report in Appendix F for identification additional wetlands that were not 

previously mapped in the NWI. Note that the Wetland Delineation Report includes areas 

outside of the Project limits.

Wetland conditions were assessed throughout the Project study area and were delineated in the 

field during investigations conducted in Fall 2010, Spring 2011, and Spring 2012. The wetland 

delineations associated with these investigations are contained herein as these are locations 

with a high potential for ROW acquisition and/or work within WOUS. 

Four types of wetland plant communities, as defined by USFWS, were identified in the Project

study area. These include open water, emergent, shrub, and forested. Open water habitats 

include WOUS. Emergent wetlands were generally herbaceous-dominated wetlands in 

depression areas or along the banks of the creek. The shrub and forested wetlands are primarily 

along the banks of creeks. Forested wetlands are dominated by trees and include depression 

and riparian areas. Refer to Section 3.2.2 for surface water information, including intermittent 

streams located within the Project boundary limits for the siding. Refer to Table 3 for wetlands 

that would be impacted by the Build Alternative.

None of the wetlands found along the UPRR tracks are considered to be High Quality Aquatic 

Resources (HQARs). HQARs are aquatic area considered to be regionally critical due to their 

uniqueness, scarcity, and/or value, and other wetlands considered to perform functions 

important to the public interest, as defined by USACE. An item within the HQARs category is 

Advanced Identification (ADID) wetlands. ADID sites are aquatic sites that have been 

previously identified by the Chicago District ACE and USEPA as areas generally unsuitable for 

disposal of dredged or fill material. Logan County has not adopted the USEPA Advanced 

Identification (ADID) program, which inventories high quality areas. Therefore, no ADID

wetlands are located within the Project limits or within the entire county.

Under the implementing regulations of the Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 

(IWPA), impacts to wetlands having a Floristic Quality Index, (FQI) rating of 20 or greater 

require 5.5 to 1.0 mitigation ratios. An FQI is a standardized tool, introduced by Floyd Swink 

and Gerald Wilhelm of the Morton Arboretum, replaces subjective assessments, and although 

approximate, provides a useful number for comparing various natural areas. There are no high 

quality wetlands within the Project study area and therefore no high quality wetland areas will 

be affected by the Build Alternative. An FQI score below 10 suggests a site of poor natural 

quality; below five, a highly disturbed site of very poor natural quality. Conversely an FQI 

value of between 10 and 20 suggest a site of fair natural quality and an FQI of 20 or more

suggests that a site has evidence of native character and may be considered an environmental 

asset. The C-value is a number between 0 and 10 assigned to individual plant species by a panel 

of experts with knowledge of the native flora of a particular region.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-25 Environmental Assessment

Figure 16 – Wetlands
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-26 Environmental Assessment

Figure 17 – Wetlands
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-27 Environmental Assessment

Figure 18 – Wetlands
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-28 Environmental Assessment

Figure 19 – Wetlands
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-29 Environmental Assessment

There were no areas within the Project limits that met the criteria for farmed wetlands as 

defined by the Food Securities Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3862).

3.2.1.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not include any construction activities and therefore would 

not impact any existing wetlands.

The assessment of potential wetland impacts is based upon direct and indirect impacts related 

to the construction of the Build Alternative which includes areas within the proposed ROW and 

environmental survey limits. Construction would include placement of fill and embankment for 

new track adjacent to the existing tracks. Wetland impacts related to construction would 

include vegetation removal, placement of clean fill, and changes to the wetland hydrologic 

regime. Besides the loss of wetland acreage, some wetland functions and values could be 

affected by the proposed Project. Approximately 8.538 acres of wetlands would be impacted by 

the Build Alternative. There would be no impacts to streams. Table 3 shows anticipated wetland 

impacts from the proposed improvements. Impacts are assumed to occur only in areas where 

known additional ROW may be necessary. As indicated in Table 3, the FQI ratings for all but 

one of the wetlands were below 10; with one wetland rated a 10.96. Refer to Figures 16-19

Wetlands for both NWI and delineated wetlands within the Project study area. Refer to 

Appendix F for the Wetland Delineation Report. Note on Wetland Delineation Report, the report 

includes study areas beyond the scope of this EA and is a reference for additional HSR projects.

Table 3 – Impacted Wetlands

No. MP 

(Approx.)

Side 

of RR

Wetland 

ID

Sample

Points

Cowardin 

Classification1

Size 

(Acres) 2

Mean C 3 FQI 4

Acres

Impacted

5

Figure Ref.

1 162.6 E DP-B1 DP 6 PEMA/PEMC 0.034 4.33 7.50 0.030 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2B)

2 162.6 E DP-B2 DP 6 PEMA/PEMC 0.020 4.33 7.50 0.014 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2B)

3 162.7 W NVM-3 NVM 8 PEMA 0.003 0.00 0.00 0.002 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2B)

4 163.9 E DP-C DP 7 PEMA 0.007 0.00 0.00 0.007 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2C)

5 164.1 E DP-E DP 9 PEMA 0.046 0.00 0.00 0.005 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2D)

6 164.7 W NVM-5 NVM 19 PEMC/PFOA 0.033 1.75 3.50 0.005 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)

7 164.8 W NVM-6A NVM 21 PEM/PFOA 0.020 2.00 2.00 0.014 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)

8 164.8 W NVM-6B NVM 21 PEM/PFOA 0.011 2.00 2.00 0.011 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)

9 164.8 W NVM-6C NVM 21 PEM/PFOA 0.012 2.00 2.00 0.013* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)

10 164.8 W NVM-6D NVM 21 PEM/PFOA 0.005 2.00 2.00 0.006* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)

11 164.9 W NVM-7A NVM 23 PEMA 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.014* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-30 Environmental Assessment

No. MP 

(Approx.)

Side 

of RR

Wetland 

ID

Sample

Points

Cowardin 

Classification1

Size 

(Acres) 2

Mean C 3 FQI 4

Acres

Impacted

5

Figure Ref.

12 164.9 W NVM-7B NVM 23 PEMA 0.004 0.00 0.00 0.004 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E)

13 165.2 W NVM-8 NVM 25 PEMC 0.177 2.50 3.53 0.120 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2E & 2F)

14 165.2 E DP-F CP DP 9 PEMC 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.001 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2F)

15 165.8 W NVM-8, 

NVM-9

NVM 25, 

NVM 27

PEMA/PEMC/P

SSA 0.346 2.33 4.03 0.309 Elkhart Siding (Fig 2F)

16 165.8 W NVM-9 NVM 27 PEMA/PEMC/P

SSA 0.346 2.33 4.03 0.058* Elkhart Siding (Fig 2F)

17 165.9 W NVM-10A NVM 29 PEMA 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.012* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2F)

18 165.9 W NVM10B NVM 29 PEMA 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.012* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2G)

19 166.0 W NVM-11 NVM 31 PEMC 0.042 2.50 3.53 0.045* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2G)

20 167.7 E DP-H DP 20 PEM/PSSA 2.246 4.50 9.00 0.943 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2H)

21 167.9 E DP-I DP 21 PEMC 0.196 2.75 5.50 0.196 Elkhart Siding

(Fig 2I)

22 168.0 E DP-J DP 23 PEMA 0.101 1.75 3.50 0.109* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2J)

23 168.0 E DP-K DP 24 PEMA 0.108 6.33 10.96 0.117* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2J)

24 168.1 E DP-S DP 36 PEMA 0.135 3.50 7.00 0.120 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2J)

25 168.1 W DP-R DP 34 PEMC 0.411 0.33 0.57 0.326 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2J)

26 168.2 E DP-N DP 28 PEM/PFOA 0.741 2.00 2.83 0.014 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2J & 2K)

27 168.4 W DP-O DP 31 PEMA 0.336 2.25 4.50 0.355* Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2J & 2K)

28 169.0 W DP-EE DP 38 PEMA 6.069 2.00 2.00 4.147 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2K & 2L)

29 170.0 W DP-FF DP 39 PEMA 2.356 7.00 7.00 1.529 Elkhart Siding 

(Fig 2M)

 Total Wetland Area = 13.841 Total Impacted Acres = 8.538

1 PEMA = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded, PEMC = Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded, PEMF = Palustrine Emergent 

Semi-permanently Flooded, PSSA = Palustrine Scrub Shrub Temporarily Flooded, PFOA = Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded 2 Acreage within project area, some wetlands continue beyond the project boundary limits

3 Average of the Coefficient of Conservatism value 4 FQI = the Mean Coefficient of Conservatism divided by the square root of the number of species 5 Source for impacted acreage calculations are preliminary design drawings not the wetland delineation report * Preliminary design drawings assigned larger impact acreage than the wetland report delineation size; in the case of wetland 15, 

two wetlands from the delineation report were identified as one impacted area in the design drawings 

Recognizing the conceptual engineering detail of the Project, further efforts would be made in 

future phases of work (including the design phase) to avoid and minimize additional wetland 

impacts. Avoidance and minimization can be accomplished by narrowing the railroad crosssection with the use of retaining walls, steeper embankments, and bridging critical wetland 

resources. Avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetland resources may be constrained by other 

critical resources or local issues. Objectives for mitigation would be established in consultation 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-31 Environmental Assessment

with regulatory and resource agencies. The IDOT biological resource review (BRR), dated June 

10, 2013, states that after the extent of impacts is determined, a Wetland Impact Evaluation 

(WIE) form will be completed and submitted to the IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment. If 

the Project did avoid adverse wetland impacts, the WIE should reflect the determination that 

adverse wetland impacts would not occur. Refer to Appendix B for the BRR.

The wetland sites and WOUS come under jurisdiction of the Rock Island District of the USACE. 

This includes, but is not limited to the Section 404 permit from the USACE, Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), or other 

permits that may be required. Prior to construction and as part of the wetland permitting 

process, the UPRR would coordinate with IDOT and USACE to secure the necessary wetland 

permits and mitigation as required for the Section 404 Permit and in compliance with the 

Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989.

The 2004 ROD states that all practical measures to minimize wetland impacts will be taken. The 

ROD further states that compensation for wetland impacts will be provided through purchase 

of credits in an approved wetland mitigation bank. If an approved wetland mitigation bank is 

not available at the time of permitting, then mitigation will occur by conversion of non-wetland 

areas into wetlands. Monitoring will be required for wetlands greater than 0.25 acres and will 

be monitored according to IDOT’s Wetland Action Plan and any special conditions stipulated 

by the USACE. Stipulations in the ROD will be carried forward as part of the minimization and 

mitigation commitments for the Project.

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources

This subsection provides an overview of surface and groundwater resources and the water 

quality of those resources within the Project study area. It focuses on resources with the 

potential to be affected by the Build Alternative.

3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions 

Surface Water Resources

The Project study area lies predominately within the Salt Creek watershed, a drainage area of 

1,856 square miles, and within the Lake Fork sub-watershed, a drainage area of 277 square 

miles. Salt Creek drainage area is within the Salt Watershed, HUC 07130009. Salt Creek and 

Lake Fork do not cross the Elkhart Siding Project area. The southern portion of the Project study 

area, near the Logan-Sangamon County boundary, falls within the northern edge of the South

Fork Sangamon River watershed, a drainage area of 883 square miles.

Salt Creek is one of two primary tributaries of the Sangamon River, which in turn is a tributary 

of the Illinois River. Salt Creek and the South Fork of the Sangamon River combine to form the 

(Lower) Sangamon River. This confluence is located on the Menard/Mason County boundary 

southwest of Mason City, Illinois. The Salt Creek watershed encompasses portions of six 

counties, including Logan County. Salt Creek is formed by four tributaries: Lake Fork, Sugar 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-32 Environmental Assessment

Creek, Kickapoo Creek, and Salt Creek. Lake Fork parallels the UPRR tracks on the east 

northward from 1200N Rd., however, the railroad does not cross the Lake Fork within the 

Project study area. The tracks cross Elkhart Slough within the Elkhart Siding in two locations -

once south of Broadwell at MP 165 and again midway between Broadwell and Elkhart at MP 

166. At MP 167.49 to 167.51 there is a field drainage area considered an unnamed intermittent 

stream that was dry when observed during the 2012 field survey. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that do not meet 

applicable water quality standards and submit a list of impaired waters to the USEPA for 

review and approval. The Project study area has no waterways that are 303(d) listed waters, as 

set forth in the federal Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Planning and Management 

regulation in 40 CFR Part 130. Elkhart Slough has not been assessed by the USEPA for Section 

303(d) standards. 

North of the Project study area, Salt Creek, and Lake Fork have had past water quality problems 

and impairments (primary contact, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). The 

reaches with impairments do not cross the UPRR mainline. In 2012, Salt Creek at the UPRR (EI03) fully supports for aquatic life. Wolf Creek (EN-01) south of the Project study area was 

assessed in 2005 (not impaired) but was not assessed in 2012. 

None of the surface water resources in the Project study area are National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, as classified under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or listed on the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory. Likewise, they are not Biologically Significant Streams nor do they have an 

Integrity Rating by the IDNR. Salt Creek, to the north of the Project limits where it crosses the 

UPRR alignment (MP 158.10 south of Lincoln), is a Biologically Significant Stream (Outstanding 

Resource Value) and has an Integrity Rating of B.

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater quality is dependent in large part on the physical and chemical composition of 

overlying geologic materials. According to a 1995 Illinois State Water Survey, overall 

groundwater quality in the Project study area is good. 

Groundwater occurs in water-bearing units called aquifers. In Illinois, aquifers are classified as 

sand-and-gravel aquifers, shallow bedrock aquifers, and deep bedrock aquifers. Within the 

Project study area, there are no principal shallow sand-and-gravel aquifers. There are no sole 

source aquifers in, as designated under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, within 

the Project area. No regulated groundwater recharge areas are located within the Project study 

area. There is no karst topography in Logan County. The Project is not located within an area 

designated by the USEPA as vital neither for a sensitive ecological system nor in a Class III 

Special Resources Groundwater area. The Village of Elkhart utilizes two community wells for 

municipal drinking water. A review of data obtained from the Illinois State Geological Survey 

(ISGS) Wells and Borings Database shows no well or boring locations within 200 feet of the 

Project study limits. 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-33 Environmental Assessment

3.2.2.2 Potential Impacts

Surface Water Resources

The No-Build Alternative would not impact waterways or water quality since there would be 

no change from existing conditions. The Build Alternative would result in minor impacts to 

waterways and water quality resulting from culvert replacement and modifications, which 

include the addition of handrails and the raising of retainer walls. Minor impact would occur 

from in-stream bank work and construction activity. A small amount of stream substrate may 

be permanently removed to accommodate the culvert replacement at the intermittent stream 

location in the study area. Impact minimization is provided through the use and enforcement of 

the Illinois Erosion and Sediment Control Policy, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permits, that employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. silt fences, check dams, 

and appropriately sized sediment basins). Permanent BMPs installed following construction 

(e.g. permanent seeding and use of native vegetation) would further reduce impacts.

Groundwater Resources

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative would not have any impact on 

groundwater resources, such as existing wells or borings. The HSR trains will not transport any 

freight that may be a potential contaminant of groundwater resources with the exception of the 

on-board fuel and other on-board petroleum based products. The project will not create any 

new potential “routes” for groundwater pollution or any new potential “sources” of 

groundwater pollution as defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. Accordingly, 

the project is not subject to compliance with the minimum setback requirements for community 

water supply wells or other potable water supply wells. The UPRR has an established Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan to address any potential spill from a locomotive.

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides protection for species 

that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions

Threatened and endangered species potentially occurring in the Project were identified from 

information supplied by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR, 2011) and the 

USFWS through Section 7 Consultation (USFWS, 2013). Agency records and databases were 

reviewed to determine if federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species are known to 

exist in the Project study area.

Two federal threatened or endangered species are found in Logan County. The Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) is an endangered species and the eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera 

leucophaea) is a threatened species. The habitat for the Indiana bat is caves, mines (hibernacula), 

small stream corridors with well-developed riparian trees/woods, and upland forests (foraging). 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-34 Environmental Assessment

Summer habitat includes woodlands, especially riparian areas with mature, dead trees with 

exfoliated bark. Roosting sites may be used by pregnant and lactating bats, which frequently 

utilize tree cavities and loose bark on living trees. The habitat for the eastern prairie fringed 

orchid is moderate to high quality wetlands, sedge meadow, marsh, and mesic to wet prairies. 

Neither species has habitat found within the Project study area based on the field surveys of the 

proposed Project site conducted in October and November 2012 (see Appendix E for full survey 

report).

Using the IDNR's Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT), a review of the Illinois 

Natural Heritage Database identified the potential for the following Illinois threatened or 

endangered plant and animal species in the Project study area:

• Plants – ear-leafed foxglove (Tomanthera auriculata).

• Animals – Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris illinoensis)

The habitat types found within the Project limits includes developed land, agricultural land, 

pastureland, grasslands, forested land and open fields. Field surveys conducted in the Fall of 

2012 determined that no suitable potential habitats were found for the federal or state listed 

threatened or endangered species. Suitable habitat is an area that is capable of providing 

individuals or populations of a species with food, shelter, protection (from human and animal 

predators), breeding sites, and sites for nesting and rearing young. To be considered suitable 

habitat, it may have to contain certain types of geological features, particular types of water 

bodies, particular types of trees or plants or other species of wildlife. Table 4 summarizes 

federal and state endangered and threatened species in Logan County, their habitats, and their 

occurrence within the Project limits.

Table 4 – Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species

Name Species Designation Habitat Presence/Available 

Habitat in Study Area1

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Federal Endangered 

Animal Species

Caves, mines, small stream 

corridors, riparian woods/trees, 

upland forests

Not found within project 

limits for Elkhart Siding

Illinois chorus frog Pseudacris 

illinoensis

State Endangered 

Animal Species

Habitat specialist requiring fine, 

sandy soils for aestivation and 

seasonally flooded wetlands or 

fishless ponds for reproduction

Not found in surveyed 

areas

eastern prairie 

fringed orchid

Platanthaera 

leucophaea

Federal Threatened 

Plant Species

Mesic prairie, wetlands, sedge 

meadows, edges of marshes

Not found in surveyed 

areas

ear-leafed 

foxglove

Tomanthera 

auricultata

State Threatened 

Plant Species

Dry to moist prairies in open 

uplands and woods

Not found in surveyed area, 

last recorded in Illinois in 

1957

Sources: Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC).

1 Surveyed areas were within the Original Project study area

A review of the IDNR’s corridor wide natural resource assessment from September 2011, for the 

entire HSR corridor from Chicago to St. Louis indicated that there were no state listed 

threatened or endangered species occurring within the Project study area for this EA. The 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-35 Environmental Assessment

Biological Resource Review (BRR), dated June 10, 2013, also indicates that there were no state 

listed threatened or endangered species within the Project study area.

Remnant Railroad Prairie Species

The 2003 Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) report titled Inventory of Roadside Prairies, 

Illinois Department of Transportation, District 6, identified portions of remnant prairies that fall 

within the Project study limits. The INHS report identified a 6.7 mile, 98 foot wide prairie 

remnant north of Elkhart and 4.9 mile, 112 foot wide prairie remnant north of Williamsville. 

Both prairie remnants are highly degraded, low quality prairies with exotic species dominating 

portions of the remnants. None of the prairie remnants are part of a preserve or Illinois Natural 

Area according to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Natural Resource Assessment 

for the High Speed Rail Corridor (September 2012). The entire prairie remnant north of Elkhart, 

from MP 162.50 to 166.50, falls within the limits of the Project. The remnants are not part of a 

nature preserve or Illinois Natural Area. Sections of the prairie remnant north of Williamsville, 

from MP 171 to 169 also fall within the limits of the Project. A Fall 2012 field survey report 

identified a third prairie remnant at 162.02 to 162.09, and has a grade D quality rating, as 

referenced in the field survey report found in Appendix E. Grade D indicates that occasional 

prairie plants grow on soil that is either disturbed or undisturbed.

The natural quality grading system of Illinois prairies dates back to the Illinois Natural Areas 

Inventory and was developed by White (1978). The grading system is a measure of the degree 

of disturbance to soils and vegetation. There are five classifications, A through E. They are 

defined as follows in White, 1978: 

• Grade A: Natural Prairie – Species composition is natural or nearly so, with a full 

diversity of forbs and without an overabundance of weedy species. Soil is undisturbed 

by earthmoving; or it may have been lightly disturbed but the vegetation appears 

natural. 

• Grade B: Disturbed Prairie – Species composition is altered from the original natural 

condition. Some characteristic prairie plants are absent; others are overly abundant. 

There may be patches of native weeds and many exotic species. Soil is typically light 

graded or otherwise disturbed.

• Grade C: Degraded Prairie – Species composition is unnatural. There may be only 

scattered clumps and irregular, discontinuous patches of grass, with a dominance of 

weedy vegetation.

• Grade D: Occasional prairie plants grow on soil that is either disturbed or undisturbed.

• Grade E: Prairie plants are essentially absent because of disturbance.

Grade A and B are considered high quality prairie. Grade C is degraded and Grades D and E 

are low/no quality. Subsequent to the INAI, refinement of the grading system have added a + 

or – modifier to the grade, similar to the method used for designation of the wetland indicator 

status for plant species. A discussion of the methodology and application of the grading system 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-36 Environmental Assessment

for the HSR is on p. 2-94 of the DEIS, with more detail in the Native Prairie Technical Report 

(March 1999, Federal Highway Administration and Illinois Department of Transportation) –

particularly page 2. As stated in the FEIS, the criterion used in determining whether prairie 

remnants with impact would have design and construction actions to maximize avoidance, 

impact minimization measures and compensatory mitigation applied was a grade of C+ or 

higher. 

The BRR states that the limits of the Elkhart siding improvement were surveyed for the 

presence of high quality prairie, per the commitment in the 2004 ROD for the proposed 

Chicago-St. Louis HSR project. The BRR states that survey results indicate that no high quality 

prairies were located within the limits of the proposed improvements.

3.2.3.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact threatened or endangered species since there 

would be no change from existing conditions.

The location of the Elkhart Siding did not contain the habitat or activity evidence of federal or 

state listed threatened or endangered species, therefore the Build Alternative would not impact 

federal or state threatened or endangered animal or plant species. The BRR states that ten areas 

of moderate to low quality (grade C to D) prairie were delineated for a section of the overall 

HSR project referred to as Tier 3, which includes the Elkhart Siding. The Build Alternative 

would impact three of those remnant prairies with an impact area of 7.23 acres. .

The IDOT BRR, dated June 10, 2013, states that an undetermined number of trees would be 

removed to construct the proposed improvements. The locations of tree removals are unknown 

at this time. In order to minimize the potential for impacts to the Indiana bat UPRR would 

commit to clearing trees while the Indiana bat is hibernating, September 30 through April 1. 

With implementation of this conservation measure, the proposed improvements would not 

impact the Indiana bat. The BRR also states that although there are wetlands and prairie 

remnants within the limits of the proposed improvement, those habitats are degraded and are 

not suitable for the eastern prairie fringed orchid. The BRR determined that the proposed 

project would have no effect to the eastern prairie fringed orchid. FRA forwarded the BRR to 

the USFWS for a 30 day review and comment period and no comments were received. See 

Appendix B Coordination and Consultation for the BRR.

Mitigation

All disturbed areas not occupied by Project facilities would be immediately revegetated and 

mulched to stabilize disturbed soils, minimize erosion, and enhance the productivity and 

aesthetics.

Pursuant to the 2004 ROD, prairie mitigation will occur for sites with a quality of C+ or higher. 

The prairies and prairie remnants within the Project area do not meet that minimum 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-37 Environmental Assessment

classification. Per the BRR, the Project will minimize temporary impacts to prairies during 

construction, staging and access to the Project site according to the prescription under the 

heading labeled Prairie in the BRR. Where avoidance is not possible, UPRR would minimize the 

area of disturbance (direct and indirect, temporary and permanent) through the use of BMPs, 

such as exclusionary fencing. Per the 2013 BRR, UPRR would notify the IDOT Bureau of Design 

and Environment as soon as unavoidable impacts to prairies are known.

Per the BRR, there would be no tree clearing April 1 through September 30, in order to conserve 

the Indiana bat.

3.2.4 Special Lands

A review of the Illinois Natural Heritage Database was conducted to determine if any Illinois 

Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) sites, Illinois Nature Preserves, or Illinois Nature Preserves 

Commission (INPC) protected lands are located within the Project study area. 

Elkhart Hill (0178) and Salt Creek (1432) are Illinois National Area Inventory (INAI) Sites in this 

general area but are located outside of the Project study area. Elkhart Hill l Nature Preserve, 

North Elkhart Hill Grove Land and Water Reserve and Elkhart Hill Grove Land and Water 

Reserve are located approximately 0.7 miles east of the UPRR and are outside of the Project 

boundary limits.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact special lands since there would be no change from 

existing conditions. The Build Alternative would not impact special lands because they are 

outside of the Project study area. 

3.2.5 Section 4(f) Properties

Section 4(f) properties include publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or 

waterfowl refuges, or any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

3.2.5.1 Existing Conditions

An inventory of Section 4(f) properties within 1,000 feet of the Project study corridor was 

conducted. The Village of Broadwell has no municipal parks. The Village of Elkhart has one 

park, Elkhart Community Park, located approximately 1,100 feet from the rail line. There are no 

privately or publicly owned historic sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP located in the 

Project study area (refer to Section 3.3.9 and Appendix B).

In an IDOT letter dated February 13, 2013 with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) dated February 19, 2013, IDOT stated that no Historic Properties subject to 

protection under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, will 

be affected by this proposed Project. Refer to Appendix B for SHPO coordination.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-38 Environmental Assessment

3.2.5.2 Potential Impacts

Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the Build Alternative would impact any parks or historic 

sites; therefore the Project would not use lands subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966.

3.2.6 Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources

This section identifies any significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the 

developed environment. The section also includes the consideration given to design quality, art, 

and architecture in project planning and development.

3.2.6.1 Existing Conditions

The proposed Elkhart Siding is located parallel to the existing mainline track and in an area of 

developed land with some agricultural land use and grassland/shrubland habitat. There are no 

forested areas within the Project study area, although there are areas of trees that are described 

in Section 3.1.6. There are no historic properties within the viewshed of the Project study area.

3.2.6.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not have any impacts on aesthetic or scenic resources, as the 

conditions would not change from the existing views. Under the Build Alternative, there would

be some minor impacts to visual resources as there would be tree removals. Also, temporary 

easements would need to be obtained by UPRR for construction access and to stage materials; 

however, these easements would not require the relocation of residences, or permanently 

impact scenic resources. The overall visual environmental would remain largely the same.

3.3 Human Environment

The purpose of this section is to describe the characteristics of the Human Environment within 

the area that is to be served or affected by the Project. Included in this section is a discussion of 

the anticipated transportation, socioeconomic, environmental justice, barriers to the elderly and 

disabled, public health and safety, hazardous materials, and cultural resource effects of the 

Build Alternative. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified.

3.3.1 Transportation

This section summarizes the transportation impacts expected under the No-Build Alternative 

and the Build Alternative.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-39 Environmental Assessment

3.3.1.1 Existing Conditions

Under the current schedules, there are five daily round-trip Amtrak passenger trains. There are 

four (4) at-grade rail/roadway crossings within the Project study area: Broadwell (1), Elkhart (1), 

and rural Logan County (2).

3.3.1.2 Potential Impacts

Under the No-Build Alternative there would be no change in passenger train schedules or atgrade crossings from existing conditions. The No-Build Alternative would not have a siding 

and therefore would not allow freight trains to move into a siding while passenger trains 

passed through the Elkhart area. Without a siding, HSR service north and south of Elkhart 

would be experience delays.

There are no proposed changes in the number of Amtrak trains in the Project study area. There

are no new stations proposed in the Project study area. Based on the improvements in the 2004 

ROD, there would be an increase in ridership over time as a direct result of infrastructure 

improvements, including this siding Project, that would increase HSR passenger rail viability as 

presented previously in Section 1.0 Purpose and Need for Action.

Projected freight operations will increase with construction of new intermodal facilities in Joliet

and Alton. The cities of Joliet and Alton are not in the Project study area included for this EA.

However, they have an influence on the volume of freight traffic experienced in the Project 

study area. Rail operations in Joliet and Alton (?) would be affected without siding tracks in this 

portion of the route to allow through movement, affecting freight and passenger rail. 

The Build Alternative would result in temporary impacts to vehicular operations during 

construction of the additional siding track, reconstruction of the mainline track and at-grade 

roadway crossovers, and the installation of the new four-quadrant gates with vehicle detection 

equipment at roadway crossings. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent 

crossings could be required. Minor and temporary impacts to vehicular traffic could affect 

emergency services, schools, businesses, and other local activities requiring vehicular access, 

but only on a short term basis during Project construction.

The Build Alternative would result in improvements to on-time rail performance on the existing 

route and provide for shorter trip times; thus, the Project would have a beneficial effect on other 

railway operations. Temporary delays during construction would be experienced, affecting 

operating speeds in construction zones and affecting schedules due to the necessity of 

temporary track shutdowns. 

The Build Alternative has no additional permanent impacts to vehicular traffic or parking and 

there are no changes to access. There are no additional grade crossing closures subject to this reevaluation. The identification and process by which grade crossing closures will occur have 

been previously cleared in the Grade Crossing Closure and Enhancement CE completed in 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-40 Environmental Assessment

2011. There are four at-grade crossings (identified in Section 2.2) within the limits of this project

that will require temporary closings. 

The Project is expected to have a positive impact on bicycle and pedestrian transportation 

through design improvements at the at-grade crossings that would accommodate crossing 

pedestrians and bicycles. Design elements include the dimensions, flatness, height, surface, and 

flangeway design (depth and width) of the crossing and also the crossing angle. Fencing 

installed in the municipalities of Broadwell and Elkhart would channel pedestrians to access 

locations at cross roads where crossings incorporate design features specifically considering 

pedestrian movement.

3.3.2 Land Use 

3.3.2.1 Existing Conditions

Logan County is designated a non-metropolitan area and is primarily rural. IDOT coordinates 

transportation planning activities with local agencies in Logan County. The Illinois State 

Transportation Plan was completed in December 2012.

The Logan County Planning Element (December 2009), prepared by the Logan County Planning 

Subcommittee, is the county’s Hazardous Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan addresses longterm risk reduction/elimination to human life and property from hazards in adherence to FEMA 

goals and objectives pursuant to requirements of the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

(DMA 2000). There is no zoning or comprehensive land use plan specifically for Broadwell and 

Elkhart. The Logan County Comprehensive Plan (December 2006), prepared by the Logan 

County Regional Planning Commission, with technical assistance from the McLean County 

Regional Planning Commission, is a guide, with emphasis on land use planning and meeting 

the environmental needs of the community. Logan County does not have a land use plan with 

zoning ordinances.

The City of Lincoln is the largest municipality in Logan County. In addition to residential areas, 

the city is occupied by government facilities, educational institutions, and commercial and 

industrial land uses.

More than 95 percent of the County's 618 square miles are in active agricultural use, utilizing 

the area's fertile soil and open topography. In the unincorporated agricultural areas, there are 

isolated agricultural and industrial facilities adjacent to the railroad. These facilities are 

generally located near a rail crossing providing access to Old U.S. Route 66 and Interstate 55. 

Land uses in Logan County are predominantly agriculture, with scattered wooded riparian 

greenways (Logan County Regional Planning Commission, 2006).

3.3.2.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact land use as there would be no change in the 

existing land use designations.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-41 Environmental Assessment

The Build Alternative would impact land use with the acquisition of approximately 29.15 acres 

of additional ROW. The land use categories and percentages for the proposed additional ROW 

are as follows:

• Grassland: 35% (10.2 acres)

• Hedgerow: 30% (8.7 acres)

• Shrubland: 27% (7.9 acres)

• Developed Land (Urban): 8% (2.3 acres)

Displacements

No displacements are anticipated as a result from the Build Alternative. 

Temporary easements or purchase of ROW needed for construction access and to stage

materials by the UPRR would not require the relocation of any structure. ROW purchases 

would be conducted in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Act of 1970 (Uniform Relocation Act) (42 USC Sections § 4601 et seq.), as amended, 

and U.S. DOT implementing regulations, 49 CFR part 24. The Uniform Relocation Act applies to 

all federal or federally assisted activities that involve the acquisition of real property or the 

displacement of residences or businesses. IDOT would implement the provisions of the State of 

Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act.

Community Services and Facilities

Schools, medical centers, and fire and police stations serve the daily needs of residents near the 

two municipal areas of Broadwell and Elkhart in the Project study area. There are no municipal 

parks that would be affected by the Project. There would be no direct impact to any of these 

community services or facilities.

Streets in each of these incorporated areas in the Project study area provide access to and from 

educational and medical facilities and play a critical role in providing these services, and in 

serving the health, safety and general welfare of those who use them. Because there would be 

no alteration to the existing street grid, except for short-term temporary closures during 

construction, impacts to these services and facilities would be minimal. In some cases, 

temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings could be required, causing minor affects to 

emergency services, schools, businesses, and other local activities requiring vehicular access.

3.3.3 Demographics

3.3.3.1 Existing Conditions 

Logan County is primarily agricultural, with a 2010 population density of 49.0 persons per 

square mile. Lincoln, the largest city, has over half of the county population. From 2000 to 2010, 

the Logan County population declined by almost three percent, from 31,183 to 30,305. The 

Village of Elkhart declined by 8.6 percent, far below the Illinois statewide increase of 3.3 

percent, as shown in Table 5.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-42 Environmental Assessment

Table 5 – Population and Households 2000 and 2010 Census

Community

Population Households

2000 

Census

2010 

Census

Percent 

Change 

(2000-2010)

2000 

Census

2010 

Census

Percent 

Change 

(2000-2010)

State of Illinois 12,419,293 12,830,632 3.3 4,591,779 4,836,972 5.3

Logan County 31,183 30,305 -2.8 10,981 11,070 0.8

Village of Elkhart 443 405 -8.6 183 198 8.2

Village of Broadwell 169 145 -14.2 70 78 11.4

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 and Census 2010; Lincoln and Logan County Economic Partnership, 

2011; Community Profiles 

The number of households in Illinois increased 5.3 percent during the same ten years. The 

percentage change in Logan County households was 0.8 percent; however, the municipalities in 

the Project study area showed marked increases: Village of Elkhart (8.2%) and Village of 

Broadwell (11.4%).

Racial and Ethnic Composition

Table 6 shows that minority populations in Logan County are not concentrated in the villages 

within the Project study area. Approximately 1.6 percent of the combined population of Elkhart 

and Broadwell are minorities.

Table 6 – Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010

Community White

Black/

African 

American

Am. 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian Pacific 

Islander Other

Two or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or Latino 

(of any 

race)

 State of Illinois 9,177,877 1,866,414 43,963 586,934 4,050 861,412 289,982 2,027,578

 Logan County 27,008 2,285 60 184 5 371 392 893

 Village of Elkhart 397 0 0 2 2 1 3 13

 Village of Broadwell 144 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2010 and community profile websites for each city and township.

3.3.3.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact population density for the Project area as it is 

assumed the current demographic numbers and composition would remain unchanged. Under 

the Build Alternative, no impacts to demographics would occur as there are no displacements 

of homes or businesses as a result of the Project. Therefore there are no disproportionate 

impacts to minority groups either as a result of the Project.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-43 Environmental Assessment

3.3.4 Economics and Employment

3.3.4.1 Existing Conditions

Though Logan County is primarily agricultural, farming is not the largest employer in the 

county. The top three employers in Logan County are automotive and filling stations, drinking 

and eating places, and general merchandise. Table 7 lists the employment in Logan County.

Table 7 – Employment by Major Industry, Logan County

Industry Percent in County

Automotive and Filling Stations 34.9

Drinking and Eating Places 15.2

General Merchandise 14.0

Agriculture and All Others 9.7

Prescription Drugs and Miscellaneous 8.8

Food 6.4

Lumber, Building and Hardware 4.9

Furniture and H.H. & Radio 2.8

Apparel 1.7

Manufacturing 1.3

 Source: Illinois Department of Revenue, 2006; Logan County Economic Development Master Plan, 2009.

Table 8 shows median household incomes for areas within the Project study area. The percent 

change in median income is lower in Logan County and the Villages of Elkhart and Broadwell 

than the percent change for the State of Illinois. For municipalities in the Project study area, 

median household income is lower than the statewide and Logan County median household 

income for 2010.

Table 8 – Median Household Income, Census 2000 and 2010 (Estimated)

Community

Median Household Income

1999 (2000 Census) 2010 Estimated Percent Change 

(2000-2010)

 State of Illinois $46,590 $60,254 22.6

 Logan County $39,389 $48,999 19.6

 Village of Elkhart $41,838 $48,008 12.9

 Village of Broadwell $40,000 $47,816 16.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 and 2010 Income Estimates; Lincoln and Logan County Economic 

Partnership, 2011; Community Profiles

The 2010 Census includes percentages of households below the poverty threshold depending 

on the family size and the number of children under age 18 at state and the municipal track 

level. The 2010 Census includes 48 possible poverty thresholds that could be assigned to each 

person or family. For a household with a family of four including two children the poverty 

threshold level is $22,113 for the household income. For a household with a family of two, with 

no children and the adults are over the age of 65 the poverty threshold level is $13, 180 for the 

household income. The following percentages for the population within the Project study area 

that are below poverty threshold levels are:
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-44 Environmental Assessment

• State of Illinois: 13.1%

• Logan County: 11.1%

• Elkhart: 8.2%

• Broadwell: 2.6%

As the percentages indicate, Elkhart and Broadwell have lower than the state average of 

households below poverty threshold levels.

3.3.4.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact employers or industries as there would be no 

change to the existing conditions. The Build Alternative would have no direct impact on 

industry type or employers in the Project area, as there will be no station proposed as part of the 

Elkhart Siding and no businesses would be displaced by the Build Alternative.

However, the Project promotes both the short and long-term creation and preservation of jobs 

while promoting new opportunities during its construction. Millions of dollars would be 

invested in construction of the 110 mph mainline track, construction of a new siding track, 

signal improvements, reconfiguration and realignment of intersecting at-grade roadway 

crossings in the Project. New and expanded business opportunities would be indirectly created 

by enhancing the capacity and increasing the fluidity of freight rail operations on the UPRR.

3.3.5 Environmental Justice and Title VI

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses discrimination issues associated with federally 

funded projects. No groups or individuals have been or will be excluded from participation in 

public involvement activities, denied the benefit of the project, or subjected to discrimination in 

any way on the basis of race, color, age, sex, national origin, disability, or religion.

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations (1994), directs federal agencies to "promote nondiscrimination in 

federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and provide 

minority and low-income communities access to public information on, and an opportunity for 

public participation in matters relating to human health or the environment." The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) responded to this order by issuing guidance for agencies on how 

to address environmental justice under NEPA. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued 

an update to Departmental Order 5610.2(a) (Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) (originally published April 15, 1997) on 

May 2, 2012. The Order updates and clarifies environmental justice procedures for the 

Department in response to the Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice 

signed by heads of Federal agencies on August 4, 2011, DOT’s revised environmental justice 

strategy issued on March 2, 2012, and Executive Order 12898.

The No-Build Alternative would not have disproportionately high or adverse impacts on 

minority or low impact populations.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-45 Environmental Assessment

As first mentioned in Section 3.3.3, approximately 1.6 percent of the combined population of 

Elkhart and Broadwell are minority populations. The two municipalities have lower than state 

average percentage, at 8.2 and 2.6 percent, of households at or below the poverty level.

Furthermore, the Build Alternative would not result in any property acquisitions of residences

or businesses or relocations; it therefore would not disproportionately affect minority or lowincome residents or populations in the Project study area. The 2003 FEIS listed at-grade 

crossing closures as the activity associated with the Original Project to have the greatest 

potential to impact minority or low-income populations. There are no permanent closures 

proposed for the Build Alternative and therefore would have no disproportionate or adverse 

impact on minority or low-income populations. Construction related closures of at-grade 

crossings would occur but are considered temporary and existing vehicular and pedestrian 

access would be restored after construction has been completed.

3.3.6 Barriers and Accessibility 

The No-Build Alternative would perpetuate any existing barriers to mobility for elderly and 

disabled persons. The Build Alternative would have no impact regarding station- and platformoriented issues related to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility or access for 

elderly because no stations are proposed. Design features for pedestrians at at-grade crossing 

improvements in Broadwell and Elkhart, where pedestrians and disabled persons may cross the 

tracks, would have a positive effect in removing or preventing barriers to their mobility. The 

pedestrian crossing escape gates are four feet in width (exceeding the recommended 32- to 36-

inch width for wheelchair accommodation), thereby assuring adequate room for passage of a 

wheelchair through the gate.

3.3.7 Public Health and Safety

The No-Build Alternative would not permanently affect public health and safety. Fire, police 

and medical response time would not be affected. 

The Build Alternative would also not impact public health and safety. There would be no 

permanent change in the existing traffic flow patterns due to the proposed improvements.

Minor temporary impacts, due to construction of at-grade crossings, have been presented 

previously and have potential to impact emergency response times from delays at crossings and 

temporary closures. All measures would be taken during the construction phase to coordinate 

with emergency service providers in order to mitigate any potential impacts due to construction 

activity conflicts. 

Two aspects of the Project would have a positive safety impact: the installation of fourquadrant crossing gates (one at-grade crossings in Broadwell, one at-grade crossing in Elkhart, 

and two at-grade crossings in rural sections of Logan County) would reduce vehicle/rail 

incidents; and the installation of fencing along the tracks in the municipalities of Broadwell and 

Elkhart would have a positive safety impact on pedestrians and bicyclists. Fencing at the edge 

of the roadway crossings without dedicated sidewalks would be extended to the crossing signal 

preventing pedestrians and bicyclists from circumventing the crossing arm when it is down.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-46 Environmental Assessment

3.3.8 Hazardous Materials

Potential hazardous materials affecting the Project study area were evaluated in a Draft 

Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (PESA) prepared on November 28, 2012, which 

included an electronic search of local, state and federal environmental databases, as performed 

by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). Results of the database search are incorporated 

into the findings of the PESA found in Appendix A. The databases and search distances were 

performed in accordance with the EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) regulations and 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05 Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments. The PESA report conforms to the methods described in the 

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Memorandum #04-09, dated July 22, 2004 entitled 

“Special Waste Procedures for Local Highway Improvements.” In addition, the Illinois State 

Geological Survey (ISGS) Open File Series Publication No 2012-1 entitled “A Manual for 

Conducting Preliminary Environmental Site Assessments for Illinois Department of Transportation 

Highway Projects” is referenced in preparation of the PESA.

3.3.8.1 Existing Conditions

The PESA identified fifteen locations with recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and 

twelve other locations with de minimis conditions. The evaluation process included onsite 

observations, historical records research, interviews and review of the regulatory database 

findings as part of its evaluation process. Some of the listed RECs are within the UPRR ROW. 

Generally, the areas of concern identified in the PESA fall into the following categories: (1) The 

identification or possibility of underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks 

(ASTs), and/or presence of 55-gallon drums; (2) Close proximity of electrical transformers and 

power equipment to the UPRR rail line; (3) Potentially impacted soils and/or presence of 

monitoring wells; (4) Potential former, as well as, current use of environmentally sensitive 

chemicals; (5) Close proximity to natural gas pipelines, and; (6) Possible presence of asbestoscontaining (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in building materials. The PESA noted that 

historical coal mining activities have taken place in the Project study area. Coal maps show that 

the nearest documented mine shafts were approximately 1.5 miles from the Project limits. 

However, the PESA states that local residents in Elkhart state a new mine shaft was opened in 

July 2012, located approximately 0.4 miles from the rail line. The location of this new mine shaft 

was not documented in ISGS Mine Notes or confirmed with coal mine personnel.

Nine of the identified RECs have been determined as potentially impacting the proposed ROW 

or construction easement of planned improvements. A summary of these RECs are found in 

Table 9. Descriptions of the REC sites listed below correspond to the PESA ID REC sites 

presented in Figure 20.

• PESA ID No. 2694-7 – UPRR Rail Line: Due to historical use of metals and batteries in a 

railroad signal box.

• PESA ID No. 2694-9 – Elkhart Grain Company: Due to a possible former AST with 

contents unknown.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-47 Environmental Assessment

• PESA ID No. 2694-11 – Elkhart Grain Company: Due to presence of ASTs and a drum of 

unknown contents; and possible former USTs.

• PESA ID No. 2694-13 – Vacant Land: Due to the presence of a monitoring well; and 

impacted soil.

• PESA ID No. 2694-14 – Vacant Building: Due to former USTs with a documented release; 

impacted soil and groundwater; presence of ASTs and drums with unknown contents; 

monitoring wells; and former monitoring wells.

• PESA ID No. 2694-15 – UPRR Rail Line: Due to historical use of metals and batteries in a 

railroad signal box.

• PESA ID No. 2694-27 – UPRR Rail Line: Due to historical use of metals and batteries in a 

railroad signal box.

• PESA ID No. 2694-29 – Elkhart Fertilizer Service, Inc.: Due to dumping; presence of 

ASTs with unknown contents; and evidence of chemical use.

• PESA ID No. 2694-31 – UPRR Rail Line: Due to historical use of metals and batteries in a railroad 

signal box.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-48 Environmental Assessment

Source: Background graphic – FWS Wetlands Mapper

PESA – Elkhart Siding – MP 161.0 to 171.0, Illinois State Geological Society, November 2012

N

 NTS

Figure 20 – REC Map 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-49 Environmental Assessment

3.3.8.2 Potential Impacts

Table 9 indicates each PESA identified in the Project study area and the potential impacts 

resulting from construction of the Build Alternative.

Table 9 – Potential REC Impacts

No. Mile Post 

(Approx.)

Side of 

RR

PESA1 ID

2694-X

Acres Potentially

Impacted

(Approx.)

Potential Impact Due To PESA1 Attachment 2

Figure Reference

1 163.41 to 

161.46 N/A 7 0.61 UPRR Existing ROW Page 2

2 163.44 to 

163.55 E 9 1.73 Construction Easement Page 2

3 166.93 to 

167.18 W 11 0 N/A Page 3

4 167.18 to 

167.21 W 13 0.37 Construction Easement Page 3

5 167.22 to 

167.25 W 14 0 N/A Page 3

6 167.18 to 

167.25 N/A 15 0.85 UPRR Existing ROW Page 3

7 168.55 to 

168.62 N/A 27 0.85 UPRR Existing ROW Page 4

8 168.57 to 

168.80 E 29 0 N/A Page 4

9 169.62 to 

167.70 N/A 31 0.97 UPRR Existing ROW Page 5

TOTAL 5.38

1ISGS PESA #2694 (Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment) Elkhart Siding – MP 161.0 to 171.0, Illinois State Geological Society, 

November 2012

Potential hazardous materials affecting the Project study area would be evaluated in a second 

PESA, which would include an (already conducted) electronic search of local, state, and federal 

environmental databases in the vicinity of the Project study area – performed by FirstSearch 

Technology Corporation (FirstSearch). The database search report is found in Appendix A. 

Search distances in the database report are performed in accordance with EPA’s All 

Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) regulations and American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) E 1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The PESA, when 

available, will conform to the methods described in the Illinois Department of Transportation 

(IDOT) in BDE #66-10A,the "Manual for Conducting Preliminary Environmental Site 

Assessments for Illinois Department of Transportation Highway Project", and Bureau of Local 

Roads Special Waste Procedures. In addition, the PESA will conform to the Illinois State 

Geological Survey (ISGS) Open File Series Publication No. 1996-5 entitled “A Manual for 

Conducting Preliminary Environmental Site Assessments for Illinois Department of Transportation 

Highway Projects.” Evaluation of potential environmental concerns contained in the PESA will 

include observations, historical records research, and a review of database information 

considered critical in the Project study area.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-50 Environmental Assessment

De minimis conditions, as used by ASTM, generally do not present a threat to human health or 

the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if 

brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies. Thus, conditions determined to be 

de minimis are not RECs. The ISGS PESA identified twelve (12) locations where de minimis

conditions exist, placing them into the following categories: (1) The possibility of hazardous oil 

(i.e., PCBs) used in the operation of electrical transformers that have not been otherwise 

documented by the power utility provider; (2) The potential long-term usage of agricultural 

chemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; and (3) The potential presence of 

asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in building materials.

Four properties were identified in the database report within the Project study area, none of 

which appear to be an adverse impact under the Build Alternative or No-Build Alternative. A 

summary of findings in the PESA, as presented in the table above, notes that 6 of the 9 RECs are 

contained within approximately 5.38 acres of the proposed right of way or proposed 

construction easements. An assessment of these potential impacts still needs to be determined, 

which may require performing a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI). Therefore, under the Build 

Alternative, the potential exists for impacts from the 6 REC sites listed in the PESA.

Mitigation

Regarding hazardous materials and the potential REC site impacts, the following commitments 

will occur for the Build Alternative:

• Accidental spills of hazardous materials and wastes during construction or operation of the 

transportation system require special response measures. Occurrences would be handled in 

accordance with local government response procedures. Refueling, storage of fuels, or 

maintenance of construction equipment would not be allowed within 100 feet of wetlands 

or water bodies to avoid accidental spills impacting these resources.

• Further environmental studies would be conducted if the proposed improvements require 

excavation, including subsurface utility relocation, on a property with an easement. A 

Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) would be conducted for state and state jurisdiction 

roadway ROW prior to acquisition of any contaminated parcel, and/or required temporary 

or permanent easements. The PSI would be conducted if the proposed improvements 

require excavation on or adjacent to a property identified with a REC or requires 

excavation, including subsurface utility relocation, on a property with an easement.

• In some cases, the portion of the Project that involves an REC can be risk managed and not 

require additional assessment. If risk managing is not possible, further environmental 

study is required, specifically a PSI, to determine the nature and extent of possible 

contamination for state or state jurisdiction roadway ROW.

• Special waste issues encountered during construction will be managed in accordance with 

UPRR standard specifications and special provisions or the “IDOT Standard Specifications 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-51 Environmental Assessment

for Road and Bridge Construction and Supplemental Specifications and Recurring Special 

Provisions.”

• In the case of emergency involving hazardous materials, UPRR would enact a hazardous 

materials emergency response plan.

3.3.9 Cultural Resources

This subsection provides an evaluation of historic, architectural and archeological resources 

within UPRR ROW. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as 

amended) requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their project undertakings on 

historic architectural and archeological resources that are either listed in or have been 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800). 

If projects are federally permitted, licensed, funded, or partially funded, the project must

comply with Section 106. Under Section 106, federal agencies are required to provide the public 

with information about a proposed project and its effect on historic properties and to seek 

public comment and input, except where confidentiality is considered necessary (as specified in 

36 CFR Parts 800.2 and 800.3).

3.3.9.1 Existing Conditions

The Historic Archaeological/Architectural Resources Geographic Information System 

(HAARGIS) was created by the IHPA in 2002 from the Illinois Historic Structures Survey (1971-

75) and the Illinois Historic Landmarks Survey (Swallow 1991). Nine (9) known historic 

properties within the City of Elkhart identified in HAARGIS, none of which are within the 

Project boundary limits. No properties were listed in Broadwell. There are no historic properties 

listed on the NRHP for Broadwell or Elkhart. An archaeological survey was completed by the 

Illinois State Archaeological Survey, and no archaeological sites were identified within the 

project area. A photo log of buildings and bridges within the project area that are older than 50 

years was compiled and reviewed by IDOT’s cultural resources staff. No structures were 

identified that warrant National Register consideration.

3.3.9.2 Potential Impacts

Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to historic resources as no 

construction work would occur.

In an IDOT letter dated February 13, 2013 with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) dated February 19, 2013, IDOT stated that no Historic Properties subject to 

protection under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

would be affected by this Project. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not adversely affect 

historic properties. See Appendix B for the SHPO coordination.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-52 Environmental Assessment

3.4 Construction Impacts

Impacts associated with construction of the improvements would be local and temporary noise, 

vibration, dust, and traffic disruptions. Noise and vibration impacts were discussed in detail in 

Section 3.1.4. There is also the potential for impacts to intermittent streams and wetlands.

These temporary impacts would occur from operation of equipment for the construction of an 

additional siding track, reconstruction of the existing mainline track, installation of new 

crossing gates and signal devices and equipment, and reconfiguration and realignment of atgrade roadway crossings. Normal traffic may be flagged at various times to allow entry and exit 

of construction equipment to the Project sites using adjacent or nearby rail/highway grade 

crossings. Such occurrences are expected to be perceived by motorists as an inconvenience.

However, these impacts would be temporary, and existing vehicular travel would be restored 

after construction has been completed.

The Project may require periodic reduction in the operating speed of trains that pass through 

construction zones. Also, there may be a need to adjust the schedule of rail operations if 

activities require temporary shutdown of selected track sections. Such schedule and/or 

operations adjustments would be necessary when there is a potential safety risk due to the 

proximity of moving trains and construction activities that are incompatible with ongoing train 

traffic. Such delays or disruptions may be similar to normal maintenance activities under 

existing conditions.

Construction could cause temporary impacts to wetlands, streams, and surrounding stream 

banks as the track improvements are made (replacement of rail, crossties and track ballast, 

removal and replacement of trackside equipment). In the section where the siding track is being 

constructed, culverts or bridge structures will be extended or replaced. These procedures are 

primarily restricted to the existing ROW, although there are also wetlands located within the 

additional ROW necessary for the Build Alternative.

Measures that are available to minimize temporary construction impacts could include

requiring contractors to 1) avoid wetlands during the establishment of construction staging 

areas and other construction activities and 2) employ erosion, sedimentation and bank 

stabilization practices at or near creeks or creek crossings. Additionally, debris and spoil 

disposal, if generated, would be removed according to state and local regulations.

3.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

3.5.1 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences to the environment 

that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the future (later in time) 

or near, but not in the same location as, direct impacts associated with implementation of a 

build alternative. Under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, indirect 

impacts are defined as those that are “caused by the action and are later in time or farther 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-53 Environmental Assessment

removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects would include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystem” (40 CFR 1508.8b).

Indirect impacts can be associated with the consequences of land use change and development 

that would be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Indirect impacts 

differ from those directly associated with the construction and operation of a project itself and 

are often caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced development.” Induced 

development would include a variety of alterations such as changes in land use, economic 

vitality, property values and/or population density. The potential for secondary impacts to 

occur is determined in part by local land-use and development-planning objectives and the 

physical location of a proposed action. 

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts

The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a 

resource, ecosystem, or community from past, present, and future actions that have altered the 

quantity, quality, or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. Under the CEQ 

regulations, cumulative effects are defined as “...the impact on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). The 

cumulative effects analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts – from 

federal, non-federal, public, or private actions – on the quality or quantity of a resource.

The intent of a cumulative-effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance of 

cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the 

proposed action to those aggregate effects. Contributions to cumulative effects associated with 

the Build Alternative on the resources analyzed would be limited to those derived from the 

direct and secondary impacts of the action.

As with any new construction, there would be additional energy expended that would

contribute to the cumulative impact as a result of the Build Alternative. This is also true with 

the loss of agricultural land and trees and this will also contribute to the cumulative impact as a 

result of the Build Alternative.

A minor cumulative loss to wetlands and/or WOUS may occur over time in conjunction with 

the Build Alternative, and other developments that may occur within the Project study area. 

These impacts, however, are expected to be minimal as these resources are protected by federal 

and state regulations, requiring mitigation for any impacts to be unavoidable.

The Build Alternative would provide some beneficial contributions to cumulative impacts. The 

proposed improved operability of freight and passenger rail service by the construction of 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-54 Environmental Assessment

expanded and new siding is expected to provide an overall benefit to air quality. Air quality 

benefits are also expected as potential motorists move to the faster Amtrak service that will be 

using energy efficient equipment. The improvements to the grade crossing treatments will 

benefit the safety of motorists crossing the railroad.

3.6 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative for this Project is the Build Alternative. The proposed Build 

Alternative would be of immediate benefit to the rail passenger and freight services using this 

line today, as well as future use for HSR trains. The Build Alternative would improve fluidity of 

train movement, decrease delays in passenger trains, and reduce congestion in the area between 

Broadwell and Elkhart. The siding track would also improve the efficiency of the railroad by 

allowing for train meets and sorting of cars for freight trains as well as an area for storing trains 

during maintenance incidents. The upgrade improvements would enhance the safety of train 

operations through the zone, including those grade crossings within the Project limits. 

3.7 Permits

The UPRR would be required to obtain approvals and or permits under the following 

authorities:

• Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Water Quality Certification from the IEPA.

• Coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm 

Water discharge permit, which is administered by the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA). Section 402 of the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit from the IEPA. Because the proposed 

Project would potentially disturb more than one acre, it would be subject to the requirement 

for an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from the construction site. Permit coverage 

would be obtained under the IEPA General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from 

Construction Site Activities (NPDES Permit No. ILR10). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan would be prepared and implemented, in accordance with requirements under the 

NPDES permit(s).

• An approved operating soil erosion and sedimentation control program which ensures 

compliance with 70 ILCS 405 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act.

• USACE Section 401/404 and state wetlands and waterways permit to authorize fill in 

wetlands and WOUS associated with project construction. 

3.8 Environmental Commitments

The following summarizes the commitments that would occur for the Preferred Alternative:
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-55 Environmental Assessment

• UPRR Commitment. Prior to construction, erosion control fencing will be placed at the 

limits of construction. Zones of fill, grading, compaction, or equipment movement will be 

restricted to areas outside the protective fencing. Impacts from silt and sedimentation will 

be minimized through adherence to erosion control measures.

• UPRR Commitment. Prior to construction and as part of the wetland permitting process, 

necessary wetland mitigation as required for the Section 404 permit would be secured.

• UPRR Commitment. To the extent practical, the UPRR should avoid and minimize impacts 

to prairie areas. The UPRR should notify the IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment as 

soon as unavoidable impacts are known.

• UPRR Commitment. Areas of temporary impact will be graded back to the original contour 

and then seeded with modified IDOT Class 4 native Grass mix. Perennial ryegrass shall not 

be included in the Class 4 mix. Seed should be planted according to Articles 250.05 and 

250.06 of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (adopted 01-

01-2012)

• UPRR Commitment. Accidental spills of hazardous materials and wastes during 

construction or operation of the transportation system require special response measures. 

Occurrences will be handled in accordance with local government response procedures. 

Refueling, storage of fuels, or maintenance of construction equipment will not be allowed 

within 100 feet of wetlands or water bodies to avoid accidental spills impacting these 

resources.

• IDOT Commitment. IDOT would make an avoidance determination at a future date 

pertaining to the identified recognized environmental conditions (REC) for state and state 

jurisdiction ROW. If the proposal cannot avoid the identified RECs, then a Phase II 

Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) would be prepared for the applicable locations on state 

and state jurisdiction roadway ROW.

• IDOT Commitment. Further environmental studies would be conducted if the proposed 

improvements require excavation, including subsurface utility relocation, on a property 

with an easement for state or state jurisdiction roadway ROW. A Preliminary Site 

Investigation (PSI) will be conducted for state and state jurisdiction roadway ROW prior to 

acquisition of any contaminated parcel, and/or required temporary or permanent 

easements. 

• IDOT Commitment. In some cases, the portion of the Project that involves an REC can be 

risk managed for state and state jurisdiction ROW, and not require additional assessment. If 

risk managing is not possible, further environmental study is required, specifically a PSI, to 

determine the nature and extent of possible contamination for state or state jurisdiction 

roadway ROW.

• UPRR and IDOT Commitment. Special waste issues encountered during construction will 

be managed in accordance with UPRR standard specifications and special provisions or the 

“IDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Supplemental 

Specifications and Recurring Special Provisions.”

• IDOT Commitment. If construction is managed by IDOT, Special waste issues encountered 

during construction will be managed in accordance with the IDOT “Standard Specifications 
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 3-56 Environmental Assessment

for Road and Bridge Construction and Supplemental Specifications and Recurring Special 

Provisions.” 

• UPRR Commitment. Unavoidable adverse wetland impacts are subject to the applicable 

replacement ratios specified in 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1090.50 (c)(8). In accordance with the 

IDOT Wetlands Action Plan, the proposed improvements are Programmatic Review Actions 

and coordination with the IDNR is not required. Programmatic Review Actions are those 

which involve impacts to wetlands only in areas where construction is within existing ROW 

or in new ROW which is contiguous to the existing ROW and for which there is no 

practicable alternative which would avoid adverse wetlands impacts. The UPRR would 

secure the required Section 404 permit and coordinate with the USACE, USFWS, and the 

IDNR.

• UPRR Commitment. In the case of an emergency involving hazardous material, UPRR 

would enact a hazardous materials emergency response plan.

• UPRR Commitment. BMPs for dust will be followed. Debris and spoil disposal, if generated, 

will be removed according to state and local regulations.

• UPRR Commitment. No tree clearing would be allowed between April 1 and September 30 

in order to protect the Indiana bat.

• UPRR Commitment. The proposal would be required to obtain a NPDES permit from the 

IEPA for construction stormwater discharges. A SWPPP would be prepared containing 

BMPs to minimize the discharge of sediment. Additionally, the SWPPP would contain 

BMPs for proper materials handling and management to prevent any chemical or material 

discharge into surface waters. A local stormwater permit would be required for all 

hydraulic structures. A permit would also be required from the IDNR for all structure 

replacements/extensions. Culverts within the project study area would comply with the 

non-notification Statewide Permit requirements.

• UPRR Commitment. Fencing construction would be coordinated with the local

communities.

• UPRR Commitment. Temporary impacts to floodplains would be restored following 

construction. Permanent impacts would require proper sizing of hydraulic structures and 

compensatory storage where required.

• UPRR Commitment. UPRR will ensure that all equipment will be in good working order 

and maintained, including the exhaust systems.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 4-1 Environmental Assessment

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Public involvement is an important part of any IDOT project planning process. In addition to 

working with the requisite federal and state agencies, IDOT efforts for this Environmental 

Assessment included outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders within the Project study area. A 

printed copy of this EA will be in the local public library in Elkhart; and electronic copies will be 

available on IDOT and FRA websites for the public to review and provide comments.

4.1 Meetings

The Draft Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was 

completed in May 2000, and a Notice of Availability appeared in the Federal Register on June 23, 

2000. Comments on the Draft EIS were solicited from regulatory agencies, local units of 

government, operating railroads, and interested citizens. Formal Public Hearings for the 

Original Project were held in the cities of Alton, Bloomington, Chicago, Joliet, Kankakee, and 

Springfield, Illinois, from July 24, 2000, through August 1, 2000. The Notice of Availability of 

the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2003. The notice specified 

March 10, 2003, as the end of the wait period. By written request, this period was extended to 

April 15, 2003, for Logan County. A Record of Decision was issued by FRA and FHWA in 2004.

UPRR and IDOT will offer a public meeting opportunity for this EA through a notice in the 

local newspaper. The EA will be available for public review and comment both in a printed

copy, found in the local library, and an electronic copy found on IDOT and FRA websites.

4.2 Agencies

Letters sent to agencies are shown in Appendix B. This appendix includes letters sent by FRA

regarding this EA. All coordination will be conducted in accordance of FRA procedures.

4.2.1 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation

The SHPO was contacted for this Project. A letter of concurrence that states no historic 

properties will be adversely affected by the Preferred Alternative is included in Appendix B.

4.2.2 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation

Consultation with the IDNR was initiated through IDOT’s Biological Resource Review (BRR).

The BRR is included in Appendix B.

4.2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The USFWS was contacted for this Project about threatened and endangered species, of specific 

concern is the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). A letter stating that the Project (the Preferred 

Alternative) is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is included in 

Appendix B.
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 5-1 Environmental Assessment

5.0 Distribution List 

5.1 Agency Coordination

5.1.1 Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Federal Highway Administration, Illinois Division

Federal Transit Administration, Region 5

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Marion, IL Field Office

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

5.1.2 State Agencies

Illinois Department of Agriculture

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

5.1.3 Counties

Logan

5.1.4 Local Communities and Jurisdictions

Village of Elkhart

Village of Broadwell

5.1.5 Railroads

Union Pacific Railroad Company
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 6-1 Environmental Assessment

6.0 References

Berg, R.C., J.P. Kempton and K. Cartwright, 1984. Potential for contamination of shallow aquifers in 

Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 532.

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and by implementation of federal 

regulations under 44 CFR 9.00., May 24, 1977, as amended.

Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manuel, 

July 8, 2005.

Illinois State Geological Survey, Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (PESA), Final 

Report for IDOT High-Speed Rail Project 8b, MP 161.00 to MP 171.00, Elkhart Siding Project, Logan 

County, November 28, 2012. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 2000, Upper Sangamon (Heart of the Sangamon) Critical 

Trends Assessment: An Inventory of the Region’s Resources. Office of Realty and Environmental 

Planning. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 2003, Lower Sangamon River Valley Critical Trends 

Assessment: An Inventory of the Region’s Resources. Office of Realty and Environmental Planning. 

March, 2003. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Regional Fecal Coliform TMDL on Salt Creek of 

Sangamon River and Lower Sangamon River Watersheds Stage 3 Draft Report: Watershed 

Characterization, Water Quality Analysis and TMDL Development. July, 2005. 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/ 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and 

Section 303(d) LIST – 2010. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 Water Resource 

Assessment Information and Listing of Impaired Waters. Appendix B. Draft.

Lincoln and Logan County Development Partnership, 2011. Logan County, Illinois Economic 

Development Master Plan. Prepared by Vandewalle & Associates, Inc. Revised May 6, 2011.

Olsson Associates, 2012. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Springfield Subdivision, SPCSL A 

(HSR) Tier 3 (MP 147.00 to MP 203.00), Logan County, IL. Wetland Delineation Report. 

September 27, 2012.

Swallow, Ann V., 1991. Summarized Illinois Historic Landmarks Survey

Swink and Wilhelm, 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region, Indiana Academy of Science, 4th Edition
Elkhart Siding and Track Construction Project 6-2 Environmental Assessment

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census Bureau, 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, February 

2009, updated September 2009. Illinois State and County Data, Volume 1 – Geographic Area 

Series – Part 13. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, 2004. Soil Survey of 

Logan County, Illinois.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, 2010 and 2000 Census, 

www.census.gov

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), FIRMette, https://msc.fema.gov .

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Map, 

Wetlands Mapper, www.fws.gov/wetlands.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad

Administration, and Illinois Department of Transportation, 2003. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement , Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project. January 2003. 

http://www.dot.il.gov/hsrail/pdf/cover.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 2012. High-Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual. (September 2012).

U.S. Geological Survey, The National Map Viewer, http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer